|
|
George, just a reminder that the "fuel droplets dropping out of suspension" is just a theory that may or may not actually occur or even if it does occur, may not have much of an effect. At the velocities we are talking about, the inlet charge may well scrub off pipe interiors preventing any build up. If this is a real problem then moving the injectors to the bottom of the sweep just in front of the throttle body should take care of it. Direct injection may turn out to be an elegant solution to a problem that does not exist. Jerry
On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 03:00 AM, George Lendich wrote:
Tom,
Your on the right track!
Exhaust contamination of the inlet charge, affects idle ( only) as the exhaust become self evacuating at higher velocity (RPM).
Cause larger Ports and PP
Backpressure on the inlet charge also affects idle as the backpressure cause fuel droplets to drop out of suspension, which causes surging, one inlet charge lean the next rich etc.
Cause larger ports and PP.
The close to housing butterfly, helps to minimize both, before too much ( of either)
enters the inlet manifold tube.
The RX 8 eliminates the first problem i.e. overlap. No problem with the second.
PP can cause the second problem.
DI will eliminate both problems!
George ( down under)
Sorry. Ok, it's not the residue that would be a problem, it's the back pressure in a combined intake system.
Tom <tomtugan@yahoo.com> wrote:
That is interesting Ed. Just thinking about it and now it would seem that the expelled residue would be the first thing that got sucked back thru a dedicated runner, also having a negative effect.
Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Tom,
One reason that Jerry would not want to do that is that there is overlap between intake and exhaust. That means while one rotor is trying to suck air in its intake port - the intake port of the other rotor may be expelling some residue exhaust gas out its intake and opposing any incoming air. I think the engine would certainly run but I don't think you would develop best power. Now it would probably be a different story with the Renesis which by moving the exhaust ports to the side housings has eliminate the exhaust/intake overlap.
FWIW
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 8:58 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P port intake
Jerry,
Since only one rotor chamber is drawing fuel/air at any given time, why would you not feed them both from a single throttle body?
Tom
Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net> wrote:
George, originally I was going to hook up with a piece of hose over the
butted pieces with a couple of hose clamps. That is how I will attach
the other end at the throttle bodies. But, we have been considering
welding and also building some type of flange. Certainly, for starters
I will use the hose and clamp method. Jerry
On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 08:43 PM, George Lendich wrote:
> Jerry,
> Is that a but weld, OR does the tube go into the bellmouth end OR a
> flange that they both go into.
> George ( down under)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jerry Hey
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:35 AM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: P port intake
>
> Yes, it is 1.61 inches.
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2005, at 05:39 PM, Tom wrote:
>
> Jerry,
> Do you have an i.d. measurement for the narrow end?
>
> TIA
> Tom
>
> Jerry Hey wrote:
>
> Today UPS brought the bell mouths for the P port intake. They are
> three inches o.d. across and have a smooth gradual taper down to the
> runner size ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
<image.tiff>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
<image.tiff>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
<image.tiff>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
|
|