X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost04.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4126299 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:37:47 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.104; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-230-68-40.mco.bellsouth.net[74.230.68.40]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc04) with SMTP id <20100216033710H0400rf9mge>; Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:37:10 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [74.230.68.40] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:37:12 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01CAAE8F.6ACE6CF0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: Acqus6Etvml3kgKBQ7KoR3vn7LjrbwABRIzA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CAAE8F.6ACE6CF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dennis, Aren't your primary and secondary tubes different lengths from rotor face to rotor face? If so, what are the two lengths? Are they different diameters? Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Haverlah Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 9:56 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo Mike: My intake tubes are 43 inches measured from rotor face of rotor # 1 to rotor face of rotor #2. Design RPM was 6200. Someone asked about my static RPM. Today I checked - with engine just warm enough to open the throttle fully, I got 5870 RPM with my new intake. With the engine completley warmed up I got 5700 RPM. This demonstrates what Lynn Hanover has stated several times - more air/fuel enter the combustion chamber at lower oil temps! I believe with my original intake I only got about 5300 RPM static. Mike Wills wrote: Dennis, So for that RPM, how long did your intake runners end up being? For what its worth, I tried to emulate Tracy's dynamically tuned intake as well. But cowl constraints probably compromised the intake at the point where the TB is mounted. This is something I want to modify anyway. As it is things are tight enough that I cant even run any sort of air filter, so I do need to make some changes here - may as well try to do it right. I know I had a picture of your intake - saw it just recently. But cant find it now. Could you re-post it? Mike From: Dennis Haverlah Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:19 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo I used the same 65 mm Mustang throttle body on both my original and new intakes. If I remember correctly, I believe I had a longer unused throttle travel with the original intake but I never measured it. I don't know the static rpm increase with the new intake - probably have that in my notes some where but my max. rpm at high altitude (8,000 - 10,000) increased 400-500 rpm. I estimated I went from 165 -170 HP with the old intake to about 185 HP with the new intake. This in in line with Ed Anderson's recent note that Mazda got about a 16% power increase at 6000 rpm with the DIE effect. I felt much improved acceleration the first time I took off with the new intake. The new intake is based on dynamic intake effect (DIE) where the closing of an intake valve caused the moving intake air to bounce off the valve creating a pressure wave. The wave travels at the speed of sound to the other intake valve and arrives there just before that valve closes. This increases the amount of air and fuel that enters the combustion chamber. (As we know the rotary has no valves but uses the sides of the rotor for opening and closing the intakes.) I designed my intake to give max. performance at 6300 rpm. If I had cut down my prop to 74" it would give me more clearance for the prop on my RV-7A and increase my top end rpm. Max rpm is about 6400 rpm with the new intake and the 76" prop. I'm really not needing higher RPM now. Dennis Haverlah _____ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CAAE8F.6ACE6CF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dennis,

Aren’t your primary and secondary tubes different lengths from rotor face to rotor face?   If so, what = are the two lengths?  Are they different = diameters?

 

Bill B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Haverlah
Sent: Monday, February = 15, 2010 9:56 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to = turbo

Mike:

My intake tubes are 43 inches measured from rotor face of rotor # 1 to = rotor face of rotor #2.  Design RPM was 6200.

Someone asked about my static RPM.  Today I checked - with engine = just warm enough to open the throttle fully, I got 5870 RPM with my new intake.  With the engine completley warmed up I got 5700 RPM.  = This demonstrates what Lynn Hanover has stated several times - more air/fuel = enter the combustion chamber at lower oil temps!   I believe with my original intake I only got about 5300 RPM static. 

Mike Wills wrote:

Dennis,=

 

So for that RPM, how long = did your intake runners end up being?

 

For what its worth, I = tried to emulate Tracy's dynamically tuned intake as well. But cowl constraints probably = compromised the intake at the point where the TB is mounted. This is something I want to = modify anyway. As it is things are tight enough that I cant even run any sort = of air filter, so I do need to make some changes here - may as well try to do = it right.

 

I know I had a picture of = your intake - saw it just recently. But cant find it now. Could you re-post = it?

 

Mike

 

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:19 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis = to turbo

 

I used the same 65 mm Mustang throttle body = on both my original and new intakes.  If  I remember correctly, I believe = I had a longer  unused throttle travel with the original intake but I = never measured it.  I don't know the static rpm increase with the new = intake - probably have that in my notes some where but my max. rpm at high = altitude (8,000 - 10,000) increased 400-500 rpm.  I estimated I went from = 165 -170 HP with the old intake to about 185 HP with the new intake.  This = in in line with Ed Anderson's recent note that Mazda got about a 16% power = increase at 6000 rpm with the DIE effect.  I felt much improved acceleration = the first time I took off with the new intake.

The new intake is based on dynamic = intake effect  (DIE) where the closing of an intake valve = caused the moving intake air to bounce off the valve creating a pressure = wave.  The wave travels at the speed of sound to the other intake valve and arrives = there just before that valve closes.  This increases the amount of air = and fuel that enters the combustion chamber.  (As we know the rotary has no = valves but uses the sides of the rotor for opening and closing the = intakes.)  I designed my intake to give max. performance at 6300 rpm.

If I had cut down my prop to 74" it would give me more clearance = for the prop on my RV-7A and increase my top end rpm.   Max rpm is = about 6400 rpm with the new intake and the 76" prop.  I'm really not = needing higher RPM now.

Dennis Haverlah



------=_NextPart_000_0006_01CAAE8F.6ACE6CF0--