X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com ([209.85.214.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6511353 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:51:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.44; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id mz10so1566085bkb.3 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=9qRZ+axrajdZbAyZv+uJNdkEVP3u4BFM4lEFH5BPi3k=; b=sGWjqdkv5mdAZMm58nmhrvj6ic402A1GZ9f66afRAmHKUV6Y+bYjzcmFzUScZ3e8Cb 7ZKks4nZAo8aB8Z3Wwx2g2vW+uMi8YgVbPPM/GowMYO/6rU0DykDeyxqbQbv8Kxfwl6X JN2391DXy+xbnuFR7jq+aDdwnCGwYgrk7rcLbqg6TCE+OYomGU3e/8IQE7U2S0isNcYf 8hz04WE2ZfTd1H9X7C0+C6DtrwaOOgeYZl7LOdtyEYe+MAA3MOzADbaUDSiM1OD9GD2e 88rr7ZvlJTfYqnU0Yp0YhBb3aO39DmfC9j+zsdZndYqLPYq/bjt7ruqF3V/kKlZHaRKJ qgpQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.204.70.194 with SMTP id e2mr30586bkj.55.1381495851166; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.102.195 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 07:50:51 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba97f7477d51d04e87691ea --047d7ba97f7477d51d04e87691ea Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, I was planning on flying, but it has gone MVFR and IFR all over the area with rain predicted today and through the weekend. It doesn't look very promising at this time. ;-( Mark On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Bill Bradburry w= rote: > ** ** ** ** > > When you get back in the air with your new panel you will have to share > some performance numbers with us. HP is just a number, what counts is wh= at > the airplane does in speed, climb rate, and fuel burn. And most importan= t, > satisfaction with those performance numbers! :>)**** > > ** ** > > Are you flying this weekend? You gotta take advantage of that buck gas! > A tank of that will buy you a set of plugs if need be! :>)**** > > ** ** > > B2**** > > ** ** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* **Rotary motors in aircraft** [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net= ] > *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Friday, October 11, 2013 6:21 AM > *To:* **Rotary motors in aircraft** > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency**** > > ** ** > > It's much too late for that now. Guess I will have to settle on the data > from other sources when it comes to the hp figures for the p-port engines > until I have the opportunity to dyno it. **** > > ** ** > > My original goal was to be able to cruise at 200 mph, which the side port > engine couldn't quite do. The p-port engine hits 200 with ease. Life is > good!**** > > ** ** > > Mark > > Sent from my iPad**** > > > On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" > wrote:**** > > ******** > > Mark,******** > > If you happened to record your climb rate and weight with the old > configuration, you could duplicate a climb rate at the same weight with t= he > new configuration, then using that formula and plugging in the difference > in climb rate, you could get pretty darn close to the increase in HP due = to > the new configuration.******** > > ** ****** > > Bill B******** > > ** ****** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** [ > mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net ] *On > Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:24 PM > *To:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency******** > > ** ****** > > Bill, ******** > > ******** > > Sounds pretty much like what I've done with my 3-rotor. My initial > side-port 20b with MT 3-blade electric prop, WOT with prop set to 1700, > resulted in a TAS of 159 kts. The new p-port engine would true out at 18= 3 > kts with the same settings. I guess I could calculate the added hp if I > knew the flat plate area of the airframe. But I'm happy just to be going > faster than I was before the upgrade. ******** > > ******** > > My point with the HP calculation was that if we're going to come up with = a > horsepower number, it won't be long and someone will compare those HP > numbers to a Lycoming of some configuration. While I'm pretty sure that > Lycoming doesn't test their engines with a water pump connected, I was > wondering if they include an alternator, air cleaner, stock exhaust, > etc. in the calculation? And what other "tricks" do they use to get to > their magic HP numbers? ******** > > ******** > > Mark******** > > ** ****** > > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM, ****Bill Bradburry ****< > bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:******** > > Mark,******** > > ******** > > I think I may be trying to determine =93SAE Kentucky Windage HP=94! :>)*= ***** > ** > > ******** > > To do this test I would have to estimate the exact weight of the plane at > the time of the test, estimate the density altitude and all the things th= at > go into figuring it out, estimate what the climb rate really was, estimat= e > what the descent rate really was, estimate prop efficiency, estimate the > PSRU losses, etc=85the only =93known=94 number I would be working with in= the > calculation is the number 33000. ******** > > ******** > > I have been telling myself, =93Self! I don=92t think my engine is really = hairy > chested like I wanted it to be!=94******** > > ******** > > I plan to get an estimated descent rate and climb rate, run it thru this > calculation and see if I still feel this way. :>)******** > > ******** > > If it turns out to be accurate, I plan to stay away from dark clouds due > to fear of being struck by lightening! :>)******** > > ******** > > Bill B******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** [mailto: > flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Monday, October 07, 2013 8:24 PM > *To:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency******** > > ******** > > Bill, ******** > > ******** > > I was getting at a defined standard so that your numbers could be compare= d > to a certified a/c engine. Wikipedia defines SAE hp, depending on the > configuration of the engine being tested, as follows:******** > > ******** > *SAE gross power*[edit > ]******** > > Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised > their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE > gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols > defined in SAEstandards > J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross = hp > was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few > belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers<= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_manifold> in > lieu of the OEM exhaust > manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, > humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.******** > *SAE net power*[edit > ]******** > > In the ********United States********, the term *bhp* fell into disuse in > 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepowe= r > in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake > horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, > and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net pow= er > testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven > accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other > power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment wi= th > the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.**= * > ***** > *SAE certified power*[edit > ]******** > > In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[20] This > test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a > certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is > allowed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" > depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain > certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take pla= ce > in an ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved > third party.******** > > ******** > > So, if I understand you correctly, you are looking to determine "SAE Net > HP", which is measured at the flywheel, and includes air filter, > accessories, stock exhaust, etc. Without these "additions", you would be > talking "SAE Gross HP". ******** > > ******** > > Mark******** > > ******** > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, ****Bill Bradburry ****< > bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:******** > > Based on the below statement, where would ********Tracy********=92s plane= t > gear system fall?******** > > ******** > > PSRUs have losses inherent in their gearsets or belts. Lay people have > often speculated that these losses are up to 40 hp in the case of a 200 h= p > class drive. This is absurd as it would represent about 30,000 watts bein= g > dissipated as heat. If this was in fact true, the case or belts would mel= t > in just a few minutes. Typical losses for single mesh spur and helical > gears is around 2-2.5%. HTD belts run at 3-4%. Twin mesh helical gearsets > would then have perhaps a 6% loss as worst case including **bear**ing > losses.******** > > The statement came from:******** > > ******** > > http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm******** > > ******** > > B2******** > > ******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** [mailto: > flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of *Bill Bradburry > *Sent:* Monday, October 07, 2013 3:42 PM > *To:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency******** > > ******** > > Mark,******** > > ******** > > They would be included if the engine was tested on a dyno, so I consider > them to be part of the engine. But not so the PSRU if measuring from the > flywheel.******** > > ******** > > Ernest,******** > > ******** > > I don=92t know what you mean by .98 to .99?? Certainly you don=92t think= it > would only be a loss of 1 or 2%!?? It would have to be in the range of 1= 0 > to 20 HP or even greater. That is 5 to 10% in our HP range. Just the lo= ss > due to prop efficiency is in the range of 30 HP!******** > > ******** > > Bill ******** > > ******** > ------------------------------ > > *From:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** [mailto: > flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *On Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Monday, October 07, 2013 1:26 PM > *To:* ****Rotary motors in aircraft**** > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency******** > > ******** > > Bill, ******** > > ******** > > While you're at it don't forget to account for the water pump and > alternator(s). ******** > > ******** > > Mark S.******** > > ******** > > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM, ****Bill Bradburry ****< > bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:******** > > I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has hazarded a > guess. > > How much HP is lost from our engines due to the PSRU? I have been > interested in determining what the HP output of my engine is and that inf= o > would be needed for that estimation. > > They tell me that most props are about 80-85% efficient, so to calculate > the > hp, you take the difference between your climb rate and your glide descen= t > rate at the same airspeed, multiplied by the weight, and then divided by > 33000. > > Wt * V / 33000 =3D HP > > This would be the prop HP, so to get the prop flange HP, you would divide > by > the prop efficiency, between .8 and .85. > > To get the engine flywheel HP, you would have to add something for the lo= ss > of the PSRU. > > Is anyone willing to take a shot at that number?? Third or forth chance! > :>) > > Bill B > > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html******** > > ******** > > ******** > > ** ****** > > ******** > --047d7ba97f7477d51d04e87691ea Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill,

I was planning on flying, bu= t it has gone MVFR and IFR all over the area with rain predicted today and = through the weekend.=A0 It doesn't look very promising at this time.=A0= ;-(

Mark


On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Bill Bradburry <bbradbu= rry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

When you get back in the air = with your new panel you will have to share some performance numbers with us.=A0 HP is jus= t a number, what counts is what the airplane does in speed, climb rate, and f= uel burn.=A0 And most important, satisfaction with those performance numbers!=A0 :>)

=A0

Are you flying this weekend?= =A0 You gotta take advantage of that buck gas!=A0 A tank of that will buy you a set of plugs if need be!=A0 :>)

=A0

B2

=A0

From: Rot= ary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Friday, October 11, 20= 13 6:21 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= p and PSRU efficiency

=A0

It's much too late for that now. =A0Guess I will= have to settle on the data from other sources when it comes to the hp figures for the p-port engines until I have the opportunity to dyno it.=A0

=A0

My original goal was to be able to cruise at 200 mph= , which the side port engine couldn't quite do. =A0The p-port engine hits 200 with ease. =A0Life is good!

=A0

Mark

Sent from my iPad


On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net&= gt; wrote:

Mark,

If you happened to record you= r climb rate and weight with the old configuration, you could duplicate a climb rate at = the same weight with the new configuration, then using that formula and plugging in = the difference in climb rate, you could get pretty darn close to the increase i= n HP due to the new configuration.

=A0

Bill B

=A0

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2= 013 2:24 PM
To: Rotary mot= ors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= p and PSRU efficiency

=A0

Bill,

=A0

Sounds pretty much like what I've done with my 3= -rotor.=A0 My initial side-port 20b with MT 3-blade electric prop, WOT with prop set to 1= 700, resulted in a TAS of 159 kts.=A0 The new p-port engine would true out at 18= 3 kts with the same settings.=A0 I guess I could calculate the added hp if I knew the flat plate area of the airframe.=A0 But I'm happy just=A0to be going faster than I was before the upgrade.=A0 =

=A0

My point with the HP calculation was that if we'= re going to come up with a horsepower number, it won't be long and someone will compare=A0t= hose=A0HP numbers=A0to a Lycoming of some configuration.=A0 While I'm pretty sure that Lycoming doesn't test their engines with a water pump connected, I= was wondering if they=A0include an=A0alternator, air cleaner, stock exhaust, etc.=A0in the calculation?=A0 And what other "tricks" do they use to get to their magic=A0HP numbers?=A0=A0=A0

=A0

Mark

=A0<= /u>

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Bill B= radburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Mark,=

=A0

I think I may be trying to de= termine =93SAE Kentucky Windage HP=94!=A0 :>)

=A0

To do this test I would have = to estimate the exact weight of the plane at the time of the test, estimate the density altitude and all the th= ings that go into figuring it out, estimate what the climb rate really was, esti= mate what the descent rate really was, estimate prop efficiency, estimate the PS= RU losses, etc=85the only =93known=94 number I would be working with in the calculation is the number 33000. =

=A0

I have been telling myself, = =93Self! I don=92t think my engine is really hairy chested like I wanted it to be!=94<= /u>

=A0

I plan to get an estimated de= scent rate and climb rate, run it thru this calculation and see if I still feel this way.=A0 :>)<= u>

=A0

If it turns out to be accurat= e, I plan to stay away from dark clouds due to fear of being struck by lightening!=A0 :>)

=A0

Bill B

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Monday, October 07, 20= 13 8:24 PM
To: Rotary mot= ors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= p and PSRU efficiency

=A0

Bill,=A0

=A0

I was getting at a defined standard so that your numbers could be compared to a certified a/c engine. =A0Wikipedia defines SAE hp, depending on the configuration of the engine being tested, as follows:<= /p>

=A0

SAE gross power[edit]=

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engi= nes in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in=A0= SAEsta= ndards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test=A0headers=A0in lieu of the=A0OEM=A0exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.

SAE net power[edit]

In the = United States, the term=A0bhp=A0fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brak= e horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft= , and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testin= g protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produ= ced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

SAE certified power[<= span style=3D"color:#0b0080;text-decoration:none">edit]

In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[20]=A0This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allo= wed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place= in an ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved thir= d party.

=A0=

So, if I understand you correctly, you are looking to determine "SAE Net HP", which is measured at the flywheel, and includes air filter, accessories, stock exhaust, etc. =A0Without these "additions", yo= u would be talking "SAE Gross HP". =A0<= u>

=A0=

Mark

=A0<= /u>

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Based on the below statement,= where would Tracy= =92s planet gear system fall?

=A0

PSRUs have losses inherent in their gearsets or belts. Lay people have often speculate= d that these losses are up to 40 hp in the case of a 200 hp class drive. This= is absurd as it would represent about 30,000 watts being dissipated as heat. I= f this was in fact true, the case or belts would melt in just a few minutes. Typical losses for single mesh spur and helical gears is around 2-2.5%. HTD belts run at 3-4%. Twin mesh helical gearsets would then have perhaps a 6% = loss as worst case including bearing losses.

The statement came from:

=A0

http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm=

=A0

B2

=A0

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry<= br> Sent: Monday, October 07, 20= 13 3:42 PM
To: Rotary mot= ors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= p and PSRU efficiency

=A0

Mark,=

=A0

They would be included if the= engine was tested on a dyno, so I consider them to be part of the engine.=A0 But not so the PSRU if measuring from the flywheel.

=A0

Ernest,<= u>

=A0

I don=92t know what you mean = by .98 to .99??=A0 Certainly you don=92t think it would only be a loss of 1 or 2%!??=A0 It would have to be in the range of 10 to 20 HP or even greater.=A0 That is 5 to 10% in our HP range.=A0 Just the loss due to prop efficiency is in the range of 30 HP!

=A0

Bill =

=A0

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Monday, October 07, 20= 13 1:26 PM
To: Rotary mot= ors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Pro= p and PSRU efficiency

=A0

Bill,

=A0

While you're at it don't forget to account for the water pump and alternator(s).

=A0

Mark S.

=A0<= /u>

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has hazarded a
guess.

How much HP is lost from our engines due to the PSRU? =A0I have been
interested in determining what the HP output of my engine is and that info<= br> would be needed for that estimation.

They tell me that most props are about 80-85% efficient, so to calculate th= e
hp, you take the difference between your climb rate and your glide descent<= br> rate at the same airspeed, multiplied by the weight, and then divided by 33000.

Wt * V / 33000 =3D HP

This would be the prop HP, so to get the prop flange HP, you would divide b= y
the prop efficiency, between .8 and .85.

To get the engine flywheel HP, you would have to add something for the loss=
of the PSRU.

Is anyone willing to take a shot at that number?? =A0Third or forth chance!=
:>)

Bill B




--
Homepage: =A0http:/= /www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists= /flyrotary/List.html

=A0

=A0

=A0


--047d7ba97f7477d51d04e87691ea--