X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c5) with ESMTP id 770730 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:27:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-025-165.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.25.165]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j9HDQe1v017757 for ; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:26:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001901c5d31e$6d233270$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:26:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5D2FC.E5D39F10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5D2FC.E5D39F10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would definitely use the 2.6 liter value for airflow calculations. = The power produced is directly proportional to the airflow and for power = purposes the 13B produces the airflow of a 2.6 liter engine. =20 Rotor Centric view: At 6000 e shaft rpm the rotors are spinning a rpm/3 = =3D 2000 rpm. So with six faces at 40 CID each we have 6 *40*2000/1728 = =3D 277.77 CFM airflow at WOT. E shaft Centric View: Or looking at it from the e shaft view point of a = 4 stroke(divide by 2) , we have 4 faces relative to the e shaft rpm = completed per cycle. This gives 4 * 40*6000/(2*1728) =3D 277.77 CFM = again. So, Bill I would use the 2.6 liter figure as I believe that is the valid = figure particularly for power and air flow calculations. Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: William=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 8:51 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? Let's take the case of sizing a K&N air filter. Their formula uses the = displacement of the engine and the rpm to determine the size of the = required filter. For that purpose do we use the 2.6 liter or 1.3 liter = value? Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:13 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? Gee, Richard, I'll bet you wouldn't spend time arguing about how = many angles can fit on the head of a pin either {:>) I agree it does not matter in the sense the engine produces what the = engine produces and does it very well, thank you. But, it is = interesting to see the topic come up repeatedly. Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Sohn=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:58 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Displacement - Again? Who cares?=20 weight vs hp and BSFC and to some extend, cost, is what counts. I = remember the bureaucrats work on the RO80 and the Spider. There was no = factual basis for their explanation than. So why wasting our energy on = it now. The real problem is that the rotary is a better solution! Richard Sohn N-2071U ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Displacement - Again? Been there, done that {:>). If you are going to compare the = power production of 13B rotary engine with a normal reciprocating = engine, then the accepted standard for a power cycle (for a four = stroke) is 720Deg crankshaft degrees of rotation. 720 degrees of a = reciprocating engine has all cylinders firing be it a 4,6,8 or 12 = cylinder engine.=20 Clearly the 80 CID or 1.3 Liters comes from simplistic sum of = the two 40 CID chambers per rotor. The 2.6 liters takes a bit more = explaining. Where I believe the controversy comes in is that 720 degrees of = a rotary leaves two faces of the 13B yet unfired. For all six faces to = fire it takes 1080 degrees of crankshaft rotation. Each rotor face = rotates 120 rotor degrees for a complete cycle- since the e shaft is = geared 3:1 then 120 deg rotor rotation =3D 3*120 =3D 360Deg of E shaft = rotation. Or another way to look at it is 360 deg of rotor rotation ( a = complete rotor revolution) =3D 3*360 =3D 1080 deg of e shaft rotation. =20 Now you can argue that the rotary has not finished its = combustion cycle (all chambers firing) until all six faces have fire = (1080 deg) - however, the accepted standard for a complete cycle of a = reciprocating 4 stroke is 720 degs.=20 So IF you are interested in comparing oranges and oranges, then = its generally accepted you compare only 720 deg of the rotary's rotation = to equal the 720 deg of a normal 4 stroke reciprocating engine. IF you do accept that - then that means 4 rotor faces have gone = through their cycle in 720 deg of e shaft rotation. So at approx 40 CID = per face we have 4 x 40 =3D 160 CID for the 720 deg cycle. And that = turns out to be 2.62 liters of displacement. Its really no different than adding up the total displacement = of all the cylinders in a reciprocating engine which do happen to = complete a power stroke in that standard 720 deg. I think the fact that = two faces or (80 CID of displacement) have not yet fire with the rotary = is what bothers folks in this comparison.=20 But if you are going to compare the power of the two different = designs of engine you have to pick one or the other as the standard of = comparison. And keep the parameters the same for both engines. For = example: If you believe the cycle of the rotary is not complete until = all six faces have fired then you have 6 x 40 =3D 240 CID in the 1080 = degree rotary cycle. We could insist that the reciprocating engine be compared to the = 1080 deg rotation of the rotary, but then you would have to increase the = effective displacement of the reciprocating engine to include an = additional 1/2 of its displacement since it will have gone through = another 360 deg of rotation to match (720 + 360 =3D 1080) the rotary = cycle of 1080deg. That way you again have oranges and oranges.=20 But, in that case both we and the recip folks could boast about = even more HP than we do now {:>) Since I am mainly interested in comparing a rotary with the = reciprocating engines production of power, I adhere to the 720 deg = standard for the comparison.=20 Not taking any sides , but someone asked where the 2.6 liter = figure came from and I hope I have answered that. =20 Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Bob White" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:21 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flyrotary_Web_Archive Re: Banishment > Hi Dave, >=20 > OK, one revolution of the e-shaft is 1/3 revolution of the = rotors. So > each rotor has had one intake event. Each face has a = calculated > displacement of about 650 cc. Two X 650 cc =3D 1.3L. If you = can explain > why it's 2.6L, maybe I can send Paul an apology. Or are you = just > trying to get my goat? :) >=20 > I'm not trying to create a big discussion on the displacement = of the > rotary, I just want to understand where that 2.6L per = revolution number > is comming from. I haven't been able to see it. I think Paul = gets it > from comparing to a piston engine, and I agree that the 13B = compares > closest to a 2.6L 4 cycle 4 cylinder engine. >=20 > Bob W. >=20 >=20 > On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:27:59 -0700 > David Leonard wrote: >=20 >> Monty, Glad to have you and you know you will always be = welcome here. >> However, you are wrong and 'he' is right about the = displacement of the 13B. >> It is 2.6L or 159.6 cubic inches to be more exact. >> That is the volume of intake on one revolution of the = e-shaft. >> But I think you knew that, you were just trying to get his = goat. ;-) >>=20 >> -- >> Dave Leonard >> Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY >> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html >> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html >>=20 >> On 10/16/05, Monty Roberts wrote: >> > >> > The doctrine of immaculate ingestion. Whereby molecules of = air and fuel >> > magically migrate into a very small, very perfect = engine,unsullied by the >> > mere laws of physics, thereby creating the salvation of the = world through >> > massive power levels. >> > In the protestant tradition of placing the individual at = the front of the >> > line rather than at the bottom of the church hierarchy, I = will henceforth >> > place all replies at the TOP of each post. >> > Monty >> > Which doctrine was that Monty? >> > >> > Bob W. >> > >> > >>=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > http://www.bob-white.com > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon) > Prewired EC2 Cables - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/ >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ > ------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5D2FC.E5D39F10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would definitely use the 2.6 liter value for = airflow=20 calculations.   The power produced is directly proportional to = the=20 airflow and for power purposes the 13B produces the airflow of a 2.6 = liter=20 engine.  
 
Rotor Centric view: At 6000 e shaft rpm the = rotors=20 are spinning a rpm/3 =3D 2000 rpm.   So with six faces at 40 = CID each we=20 have 6 *40*2000/1728 =3D 277.77 CFM airflow at WOT.
 
E shaft Centric View:  Or looking at it = from the e=20 shaft view point of a 4 stroke(divide by 2) , we have 4 faces relative = to the e=20 shaft rpm  completed per cycle. This gives  4 * = 40*6000/(2*1728)=20 =3D 277.77 CFM  again.
 
So, Bill I would use the 2.6 liter figure as I = believe=20 that is the valid figure particularly for power and air flow=20 calculations.
 
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 William=20
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 = 8:51=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Displacement -=20 Again?

Let's take the case of sizing a = K&N air=20 filter. Their formula uses the displacement of the engine and the rpm = to=20 determine the size of the required filter. For that purpose do we use = the 2.6=20 liter or 1.3 liter value?
 
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, October 16, = 2005 10:13=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Displacement -=20 Again?

Gee, Richard, I'll bet you wouldn't spend = time arguing=20 about how many angles can fit on the head of a pin either=20 {:>)
 
I agree it does not matter in the sense the = engine=20 produces what the engine produces and does it very well, thank = you. =20 But, it is interesting to see the topic come up = repeatedly.
 
Ed A
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Richard=20 Sohn
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Monday, October 17, = 2005 12:58=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Displacement=20 - Again?

Who cares?
weight vs hp and BSFC and to some = extend,=20 cost, is what counts. I remember the bureaucrats work on the = RO80 and=20 the Spider. There was no factual basis for their explanation than. = So why=20 wasting our energy on it now.
The real problem is that the = rotary is a=20 better solution!
 
Richard = Sohn
N-2071U
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, October 16, = 2005 7:38=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Displacement -=20 Again?

Been there, done that {:>).  If = you are=20 going to compare the power production = of  13B rotary=20 engine with a normal reciprocating engine, then the accepted = standard=20 for a  power cycle (for a four stroke) is 720Deg crankshaft = degrees=20 of rotation.  720 degrees of  a reciprocating engine = has all=20 cylinders firing be it a 4,6,8 or 12 cylinder = engine. 
 
Clearly the 80 CID or 1.3 Liters comes=20 from simplistic sum of the two 40 CID chambers per = rotor.  The=20 2.6 liters takes a bit more explaining.
 
 Where I believe the = controversy comes=20 in is that 720 degrees of a rotary leaves two faces of=20 the 13B yet unfired.  For all six faces to fire =  it=20 takes 1080 degrees of crankshaft rotation.  Each rotor face = rotates=20 120 rotor degrees for a complete cycle- since the e shaft is = geared 3:1=20 then 120 deg rotor  rotation =3D 3*120 =3D 360Deg of E = shaft=20 rotation. Or another way to look at it is 360 deg of rotor = rotation=20 ( a complete rotor revolution) =3D 3*360 =3D 1080 deg of e shaft = rotation. 
 
Now you can argue that the rotary has = not finished=20 its combustion cycle (all chambers firing) until all six faces = have fire=20 (1080 deg) - however, the accepted standard for a complete = cycle of=20 a reciprocating 4 stroke is 720 degs.
 
So IF you are interested in comparing = oranges and=20 oranges, then its generally accepted you compare only = 720 deg=20 of the rotary's rotation to equal the 720 deg of a normal 4 = stroke=20 reciprocating engine.
 
IF you do accept = that - then=20 that means 4 rotor faces have gone through their cycle in = 720 deg=20 of e shaft rotation.  So at approx 40 CID per face we have = 4 x 40 =3D=20 160 CID for the 720 deg cycle. And that turns out to be 2.62 = liters of=20 displacement.
 
  Its really no different than = adding up the=20 total displacement of all the cylinders in a reciprocating = engine=20 which do happen to complete a power stroke in that standard 720=20 deg.  I think the fact that two faces or (80 CID of = displacement)=20 have not yet fire with the rotary is what bothers folks in this=20 comparison. 
 
But if you are going to compare the = power of the=20 two different designs of engine you have to pick one or the = other as the=20 standard of comparison.  And keep the parameters the same = for both=20 engines.  For example:
 
If  you believe the cycle of the = rotary is=20 not complete until all six faces have fired then you have 6 x 40 = =3D 240=20 CID in the 1080 degree rotary cycle.
 
We could insist that the reciprocating = engine be=20 compared to the 1080 deg rotation of the rotary, but then you = would have=20 to increase the effective displacement of the reciprocating = engine to=20 include an additional 1/2 of its displacement since it will have = gone=20 through another 360 deg of rotation to match (720 + 360 =3D = 1080) the=20 rotary cycle of 1080deg. That way you again have oranges = and=20 oranges. 
 
 But, in that case both we and the = recip=20 folks could boast about even more HP than we do now = {:>)
 
Since I am mainly interested in = comparing a rotary=20 with the reciprocating engines production of power, I adhere to = the 720=20 deg standard for the comparison. 
 
Not taking any sides , but someone = asked=20 where the 2.6 liter figure came from and I hope I have answered=20 that. 
 
Ed A
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob White" <bob@bob-white.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 9:21=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = flyrotary_Web_Archive Re:=20 Banishment

> = Hi=20 Dave,
>
> OK, one revolution of the e-shaft is 1/3=20 revolution of the rotors. So
> each rotor has had one = intake=20 event.  Each face has a calculated
> displacement of = about=20 650 cc.  Two X 650 cc =3D 1.3L.  If you can = explain
> why=20 it's 2.6L, maybe I can send Paul an apology.  Or are you=20 just
> trying to get my goat? :)
>
> I'm not = trying=20 to create a big discussion on the displacement of the
> = rotary, I=20 just want to understand where that 2.6L per revolution = number
> is=20 comming from.  I haven't been able to see it.  I think = Paul=20 gets it
> from comparing to a piston engine, and I agree = that the=20 13B compares
> closest to a 2.6L 4 cycle 4 cylinder=20 engine.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On = Sun, 16 Oct=20 2005 16:27:59 -0700
> David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>=20 wrote:
>
>> Monty, Glad to have you and you know = you=20 will always be welcome here.
>> However, you are wrong = and 'he'=20 is right about the displacement of the 13B.
>> It is = 2.6L or=20 159.6 cubic inches to be more exact.
>>  That is = the=20 volume of intake on one revolution of the = e-shaft.
>>  But=20 I think you knew that, you were just trying to get his goat.=20 ;-)
>>
>> --
>> Dave = Leonard
>>=20 Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
>> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html<= /A>
>> http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html=
>>
>>  On 10/16/05, Monty = Roberts=20 <montyr2157@alltel.net>=20 wrote:
>> >
>> > The doctrine of = immaculate=20 ingestion. Whereby molecules of air and fuel
>> > = magically=20 migrate into a very small, very perfect engine,unsullied by=20 the
>> > mere laws of physics, thereby creating the=20 salvation of the world through
>> > massive power=20 levels.
>> >  In the protestant tradition of = placing=20 the individual at the front of the
>> > line rather = than at=20 the bottom of the church hierarchy, I will = henceforth
>> >=20 place all replies at the TOP of each post.
>> = > =20 Monty
>> >   Which doctrine was that=20 Monty?
>> >
>> > Bob W.
>>=20 >
>> >
>>
>
>
> -- =
>=20 http://www.bob-white.com
>=20 N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
> Prewired EC2 = Cables -=20 http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>=20 Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/>=20
------=_NextPart_000_0016_01C5D2FC.E5D39F10--