650 HP Rotary Time To Climb record attempt

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
6,308
Location
Saline Michigan
Jarno was likely asking about the loose fuel plumbing and undercowl fire potential, but just in case he was talking about WM's comment...

As to gunpowder in outhouse, yes if it is black powder, no if it is smokeless.

Black powder will burn at high order, so if you have a keg or more, it should be in an outbuilding with big "4" painted on each side. If somehow the outhouse burns, get eveyone way back, like over 200 m, don't face it, and cover your ears. It will go BANG!

8 pound kegs of smokeless powder will not burn at high order, but degrades more rapidly with elevated temperature. Stored in original containers in a metal cabinet in the AC is best for smokeless powder. By the time a house fire ignites that, the added fuel will be of little consequence.

This thread drift brought to you by WM and engineering experience in the gun/ammunition business...

Billski
 

Billrsv4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
129
Location
NW Oregon
Thanks for posting this Will. I tend to ignore Paul's site because of the dreaming and not enough doing aspect plus a lot of dubious info there but the fact that this is actually built and running moves it up a notch in credibility. It's a cool project whether it takes the records or not. We learn as much or more from failing with an experiment as succeeding. I do hope they succeed here and do well.
Ross,
You may have found out about this by now but I will pass it along. Paul didn't build the plane he is advising on the engine. Second: they are running alcohol, (methanol) fuel. Really helps bring some internal engine cooling to the table. Paul claims they will have a higher power to weight ratio than the Bearcat. I have no way of verifying that claim, but the rotary will be a potent combination. As to the durability of the Bell planetary, I believe they are working out the HP at a much higher shaft RPM than original input. I recall that Paul had Dave Graber's push pull Wankel powered Reno unlimited racer in his hands. Don't know if he bought it or it was given to him, but it was running 2 of the Bell gearboxes. I think they are 3:1 or a bit more so a p-port rotary could be turning nearly 9000 RPM and bring the prop in under 3k. 1000 HP x 5250/9000 = torque of 583 Ft/Lbs. Sounds doable for the Bell. Just my 2 cents. If that huge prop they got for it will leave that engine mounted to the firewall during full throttle climb, that I don't know. I wish them a SAFE flight regardless of outcome.

Bill
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Ross,
You may have found out about this by now but I will pass it along. Paul didn't build the plane he is advising on the engine. Second: they are running alcohol, (methanol) fuel. Really helps bring some internal engine cooling to the table. Paul claims they will have a higher power to weight ratio than the Bearcat. I have no way of verifying that claim, but the rotary will be a potent combination. As to the durability of the Bell planetary, I believe they are working out the HP at a much higher shaft RPM than original input. I recall that Paul had Dave Graber's push pull Wankel powered Reno unlimited racer in his hands. Don't know if he bought it or it was given to him, but it was running 2 of the Bell gearboxes. I think they are 3:1 or a bit more so a p-port rotary could be turning nearly 9000 RPM and bring the prop in under 3k. 1000 HP x 5250/9000 = torque of 583 Ft/Lbs. Sounds doable for the Bell. Just my 2 cents. If that huge prop they got for it will leave that engine mounted to the firewall during full throttle climb, that I don't know. I wish them a SAFE flight regardless of outcome.

Bill
I knew Paul didn't build the plane as he hasn't really built much of anything and certainly not much actual experience building and running turbocharged rotary engines either.

Rare Bear was making at least 4000hp and perhaps 4500 hp for its climb record (91.9 seconds to 3000M). Empty weight is under 6600 lbs. Let's split the difference in hp and say 1.55lbs./hp. 7200 pounds with some fuel, ADI and a pilot for 1.69 lbs./hp

I have a hard time believing this Rocket even with chopped wings and no cowling, weighs 900 pounds- over 200 pounds lighter than my RV6 and 400 less than a 540 Rocket. If 900 is true then maybe 1250 with pilot, ADI and fuel for 1.92 lbs./hp. Add the FP prop to that which will hurt initial acceleration and climb a bunch compared to a C/S prop and I don't see the math coming out in favor of the Wankel Rocket.

Nevertheless, a very interesting and exciting project. Hats off to them for getting this far and we'll have to see how it performs. We have a saying in racing- when the flag drops, the BS stops. If they can do it in 90 seconds, they'll have the record, and I'll applaud.
 
Last edited:

Billrsv4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2016
Messages
129
Location
NW Oregon
I knew Paul didn't build the plane as he hasn't really built much of anything and certainly not much actual experience building and running turbocharged rotary engines either.

Rare Bear was making at least 4000hp and perhaps 4500 hp for its climb record (91.9 seconds to 3000M). Empty weight is under 6600 lbs. Let's split the difference in hp and say 1.55lbs./hp. 7200 pounds with some fuel, ADI and a pilot for 1.69 lbs./hp

I have a hard time believing this Rocket even with chopped wings and no cowling, weighs 900 pounds- over 200 pounds lighter than my RV6 and 400 less than a 540 Rocket. If 900 is true then maybe 1250 with pilot, ADI and fuel for 1.92 lbs./hp. Add the FP prop to that which will hurt initial acceleration and climb a bunch compared to a C/S prop and I don't see the math coming out in favor of the Wankel Rocket.

Nevertheless, a very interesting and exciting project. Hats off to them for getting this far and we'll have to see how it performs. We have a saying in racing- when the flag drops, the BS stops. If they can do it in 90 seconds, they'll have the record, and I'll applaud.
Yep Ross, Well aware of the BS Stopping. Built cars DSR, CSR, and Formula C. Raced motorcycles myself. I understand they had a problem with their injectors and their dry sump pump. The should have bought your EFI! I am surprised about the oil pump. Before i get off the ground I'm checking every bolt twice and safety wiring anything i don't want to fall off!
BillBIKE-ME.jpg
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
544
Location
Jackson
Ross,

On the weight issue, it *might* be doable. Here are some data points. My O-320 powered wood prop -4 is 910 lbs empty. Bare bones VFR, but no particular attempts seem to have been made to keep it light. The Mazda Renesis FWF I'm installing on my -7 project weighed 310 lbs dry, including mount adapters,radiator, oil cooler, ducts, etc, which is likely a bit lighter than the FWF weight of my current Lyc. A 13B core with aluminum center & end housings would be ~60 lbs lighter than a stock Renesis core, which weighs ~185 lbs). Offsetting that weight savings would be the turbo, external oil pump, water pump, water injection tank, bigger cooling system, etc. If it has Rocket gear legs, they are titanium (no idea how much weight difference that would be). Missing cowl, well, I've never weighed mine but again, it's something. :)

HP claims for short term operation are probably reasonable, as well. Whether it will cool with the big knob forward is another question, of course....

Charlie
 

Will Aldridge

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
906
Location
Northern Utah
The aircraft made it's first true flight (only crow hopped previously). There was a video attached to the email showing the aircraft landing. Mr Lamar doesn't like youtube and I'm not sure how to attach a video like that.
 

Will Aldridge

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
906
Location
Northern Utah
I guess I should mention that over the past few months they removed that hole in the exhaust and added a manual wastegate and a blowoff valve that opens at 71" hg the so the boost doesn't run away on them.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I guess I should mention that over the past few months they removed that hole in the exhaust and added a manual wastegate and a blowoff valve that opens at 71" hg the so the boost doesn't run away on them.
I wonder what their aversion to using automatic wastegates is? The rest of the world has embraced these for 4 decades. A blowoff valve to limit boost is a bad idea as it causes a huge increase in compressor discharge temperatures. Boost control should be done with wastegates. They can do boost limiting through the MoTec easily to prevent engine damage.
 

Will Aldridge

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
906
Location
Northern Utah
A blowoff valve won't stop the turbo running away.
If this is a distinction without a difference forgive me since I'm pretty ignorant of all things turbo, but I said boost not turbo.

If there is actually a difference I wouldn't mind someone expounding on it.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
A blowoff valve is a pressure sensitive valve that vents excess inlet manifold pressure. Extra air is simply 'blown off'. Think safety valve on a workshop air compressor.
A wastegate bypasses exhaust gas around the turbo, less gas and pressure through the turbine reduces its ability to compress intake air.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
12,252
Location
Memphis, TN
A blowoff valve relieves the intake pressure, but the turbo is still spinning away until the engine throttles down either from closing it or loss of pressure. To close the blowoff valve it has to go below the rated pressure and then be brought back up. Automatic or manual waste gate, either will work assuming the automatic will close all the way. At some point on such a climb to altitude, the engine will get to the critical altitude and loose boost even if waste gate is fully closed. Unlike down low, hopefully they have a heated intake and turbo. That is what stopped Bruce Bohannon from breaking the absolute world record.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
A blowoff valve relieves the intake pressure, but the turbo is still spinning away until the engine throttles down either from closing it or loss of pressure. To close the blowoff valve it has to go below the rated pressure and then be brought back up. Automatic or manual waste gate, either will work assuming the automatic will close all the way. At some point on such a climb to altitude, the engine will get to the critical altitude and loose boost even if waste gate is fully closed. Unlike down low, hopefully they have a heated intake and turbo. That is what stopped Bruce Bohannon from breaking the absolute world record.
With the single stage turbo setup, Bruce Bohannon simply ran out of manifold pressure to go any higher. Nothing to do with heated intake and turbos since they are very well heated by the compressor air at that pressure ratio, even after intercooling. The canopy was severely iced up if I recall though.

Bruce needed staged turbos to get that bit higher but CHTs and CDTs s were oof the clock at 47,000 feet already.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
With the single stage turbo setup, Bruce Bohannon simply ran out of manifold pressure to go any higher. Nothing to do with heated intake and turbos since they are very well heated by the compressor air at that pressure ratio, even after intercooling. The canopy was severely iced up if I recall though.

Bruce needed staged turbos to get that bit higher but CHTs and CDTs s were oof the clock at 47,000 feet already.
A quick Google revealed that the manual wastegate bracket failed...
I'm trying to think of a good reason for a manual wastegate:
1. Makes money for someone.
2. It's easier than making an adjustable automatic wastegate.

Does anyone have a good reason to use a manual wastegate?
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
A quick Google revealed that the manual wastegate bracket failed...
I'm trying to think of a good reason for a manual wastegate:
1. Makes money for someone.
2. It's easier than making an adjustable automatic wastegate.

Does anyone have a good reason to use a manual wastegate?
A decent TIAL automatic wastegate is around $350 http://www.tialsport.com/index.php/tial-products/wastegates and you can make it cockpit adjustable for about $15 via a miniature air regulator. Seems like on an aircraft worth tens of thousands of dollars it would be a good investment. With a time to climb aircraft, you're gonna be busy flying it, not much time to monitor MP and adjust a wastegate every couple thousand feet which you are going through every 10-15 seconds. You just don't need additional pilot workload in this attempt.

I've said it before in this thread and others, PL doesn't listen to other people with more experience in a field and tends to do things his own way regardless of whether it's a good idea or not. Some would say he's thinking outside the box, others would say he has to learn the hard way.

Hard way or not, I hope they get things worked out safely and take a good swipe at this record. Would be a real accomplishment to beat the existing time.
 

pictsidhe

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
7,373
Location
North Carolina
I suspect the first serious flight will have a 'problem' with the manual wastegate and it will get replaced.
Out of interest, I just had a look at the feasibility of far103 to altitude. 55knots straight up is about 100 seconds. A slippery 103 and around 150hp should do it. Sponsors, form an orderly queue!
 

otter13805

New Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2016
Messages
1
Location
Oxnard
A quick Google revealed that the manual wastegate bracket failed...
I'm trying to think of a good reason for a manual wastegate:
1. Makes money for someone.
2. It's easier than making an adjustable automatic wastegate.

Does anyone have a good reason to use a manual wastegate?
Because we could not tune the **** thing without a manual one ... that's why -- Paul Lamar
 
2
Group Builder
Top