DR-1 (Sands): Builders Group

[Funfdekker]

After all the discussion what was the general consensus on what would be the most suitable. I did notice that the M14 uses an air starter.

I got this reply to a general enquiry to Rotec :-

I personally don't think you'll have any troubles with cooling the engine as its very good at not overheating. We've done some extrema test with no cooling at all and its surprisingly hard to heat the motor. We've run the engine at full power static for hours and ran in pusher configuration as well with no problems. We run no oil cooler!

I should too be noted that our 7 cylinder engine via its planetary PSRU unit swinging an 84" prop is already being installed in ww1 replicas including a 100% DR1. There for I believe that our 9cylinder 3600 will do the job easily.

As for deadlines best speak to Jim Chernikeeff [roteceng@optusnet.com.au] on availability and production schedules,particularly if your looking to the 9 which at present is being introduced at reduced quantities.

Since we moved into our larger plant we have increased our productivity yet still struggle to keep up with demand such is the ever growing popularity of the engine. We expect the 9cylinder engine will be popular as well.


And from Jim at Rotec :-

Looking over the email you sent Paul; we tested our 7 cylinder with a 84" prop and it worked though we feel that the 84" is not the optimal prop for the R2800. I'd recommend that if you wish to use a whopping 104" prop then the engine would need to be our 9 cylinder R3600 - it should handle that size prop.


Its a bit expensive though.

[Dogtail2]

I have only just got the plans and am awaiting materials from Wicks, but I am leaning toward the 9 cylinder Rotec at the moment if it can handle a bigger prop. I dont want an M14 as it turns the wrong way. Having a radial instead of a rotary is a small step away from authentic aircraft handling. Having a radial which also turns the wrong way is a step too far for me.

[van der Laan]

Left Rudder, Right Rudder ..... not much difference

[joepilot]

Funfdekker,

Please keep us informed on the progress of the Rotec engine. I, too, am very interested in the Rotec. Especially since it is very heat resistent.

On a possible reunion at Dayton, I will attempt to be there also. If I can get a layover with my airline, I will plan to attend like everyone else. As soon as someone sets a date and location, please let me know. I have to "bid" for days off by the 15th of the month prior. It appears I will be receiving enough $$$ on my birthday to buy the fuselage from Wicks. Way cool dudes!

Joepilot
check 6

"The peacetime qualifications for promotion - age and seniority - do not apply in war." Air Vice-Marshal JO. AE. "Johnnie" Johnson, RAF

"In air fights it is absolutely essential to fly in such a way that your adversary cannot shoot at you, if you can manage it." Capt. Oswald Boelcke, German Air Service

[Jim Bruton]

looks like we might have a respectable contingent showing up at Dayton- if you haven't done this yet, i recommend joining The Great War Aeroplanes Association: www.gwaero.org . details are in the latest newsletter and on website.

[baldeagle]

How many cubic inches is 2800 ccs? 3600 ccs?

[Jim Bruton]

Andrew,

cu. In. = cu. Cm.
1.00 = 16.3871
0.06102 = 1.00

170.8661081 = 2800

219.6849961 = 3600

All the Best,

Jim

[baldeagle]

Thanks Jim, still doesn't seem like much compared to a 145 Warner which is 499 cu. in.
Anybody know the torque that the Rotec engines put out at rated rpm? And the Warner?

[franzkait]

you like to compare a Warner with a Rotec ? I can not find one guy flying a rotec.

[Jim Bruton]

Andrew & Franzkait,

It would be interesting to compare the torque of a Warner, Rotec and a Russian M-14 (220hp)... I know Ron Bloomquist and Chad Wille are flying the last one (Ron is using the Chinese equivalent).

Jim