X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4126330 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:09:42 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.45; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100216040906.KVLA4995.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:09:06 -0500 Received: from willsPC ([68.105.86.80]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id iU941d0011k005Q04U95gz; Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:09:05 -0500 X-VR-Score: -120.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=3OYv9oSQMPl2mzQJct9Z0gr0/14v7p3aTRAVsPGESI0= c=1 sm=1 a=TWlVO4UZOuUA:10 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:17 a=5qvCLcFQWL0M8MgZ-IsA:9 a=VnIMjzBD7lCKBxqNQYIA:7 a=da2OJon-MQjviqnmjGAzAvEwmmwA:4 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=E1A0TbRWbgkUgyXzXLQA:9 a=2LOYv4oUI-uw9bewNi0A:7 a=WdRtFBBytd5VqE3Dl3-8SarRGP8A:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=XruvlouZCDbGUgEaRUiNZQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <1ECAC963BF8248C58B763AB06E4AD066@willsPC> From: "Mike Wills" 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 20:09:03 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0084_01CAAE7A.B8122340" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0084_01CAAE7A.B8122340 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Dennis! Mike From: Dennis Haverlah=20 Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:55 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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. =20 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=20 Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 11:19 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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.=20 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_0084_01CAAE7A.B8122340 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Dennis!
 
Mike

Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:55 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: rpm vs Power was : Throttle limits = was Re:=20 N.A. Renesis to turbo

Mike:

My intake tubes are 43 inches measured from = rotor=20 face of rotor # 1 to rotor face of rotor #2.  Design RPM was=20 6200.

Someone asked about my static RPM.  Today I checked - = with=20 engine just warm enough to open the throttle fully, I got 5870 RPM with = my new=20 intake.  With the engine completley warmed up I got 5700 RPM.  = This=20 demonstrates what Lynn Hanover has stated several times - more air/fuel = enter=20 the combustion chamber at lower oil temps!   I believe with my = original=20 intake I only got about 5300 RPM static. 

Mike Wills = wrote:
Dennis,
 
So for that RPM, how long did your intake = runners end=20 up being?
 
For what its worth, I tried to emulate = Tracy's=20 dynamically tuned intake as well. But cowl constraints probably = compromised=20 the intake at the point where the TB is mounted. This is something I = want to=20 modify anyway. As it is things are tight enough that I cant even run = any sort=20 of air filter, so I do need to make some changes here - may as well = try to do=20 it right.
 
I know I had a picture of your intake - saw = it just=20 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=20 Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo

I used the same 65 mm Mustang throttle body on both my = original=20 and new intakes.  If  I remember correctly, I believe I had = a=20 longer  unused throttle travel with the original intake but I = never=20 measured it.  I don't know the static rpm increase with the new = intake -=20 probably have that in my notes some where but my max. rpm at high = altitude=20 (8,000 - 10,000) increased 400-500 rpm.  I estimated I went from = 165 -170=20 HP with the old intake to about 185 HP with the new intake.  This = in in=20 line with Ed Anderson's recent note that Mazda got about a 16% power = increase=20 at 6000 rpm with the DIE effect.  I felt much improved = acceleration the=20 first time I took off with the new intake.

The new intake is = based on=20 dynamic intake effect  (DIE) where the closing of an = intake valve=20 caused the moving intake air to bounce off the valve creating a = pressure=20 wave.  The wave travels at the speed of sound to the other intake = valve=20 and arrives there just before that valve closes.  This increases = the=20 amount of air and fuel that enters the combustion chamber.  (As = we know=20 the rotary has no valves but uses the sides of the rotor for opening = and=20 closing the intakes.)  I designed my intake to give max. = performance at=20 6300 rpm.

If I had cut down my prop to 74" it would give me = more=20 clearance for the prop on my RV-7A and increase my top end = rpm.  =20 Max rpm is about 6400 rpm with the new intake and the 76" prop.  = I'm=20 really not needing higher RPM now.

Dennis Haverlah


------=_NextPart_000_0084_01CAAE7A.B8122340--