Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 723383 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:04:40 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net Received: from [65.176.160.213] (helo=earthlink.net) by smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CzDz7-0001oh-FT for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:03:55 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer; b=sDyEeu7NK7/LwdcCuIYIACfu78EghakPzMNsMhPve4Yv8wImGXQknqdUMFElO527; Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:04:52 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: P port intake Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-884473547 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Jerry Hey To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <5A2803B2-7B64-11D9-B3AA-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-ELNK-Trace: 8104856d7830ec6b1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79701d0d23efb0f9e4b50dce1b2ed668ab350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.176.160.213 --Apple-Mail-2-884473547 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed George, just a reminder that the "fuel droplets dropping out of=20 suspension" is just a theory that may or may not actually occur or even=20= if it does occur, may not have much of an effect. At the velocities we=20= are talking about, the inlet charge may well scrub off pipe interiors=20 preventing any build up. If this is a real problem then moving the=20 injectors to the bottom of the sweep just in front of the throttle body=20= should take care of it. Direct injection may turn out to be an elegant=20= solution to a problem that does not exist. Jerry On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 03:00 AM, George Lendich wrote: > =A0 > > Tom, > Your on the right track! > Exhaust contamination of the inlet charge, affects idle ( only) as the=20= > exhaust become self evacuating at higher velocity (RPM). > Cause larger Ports and PP > =A0 > Backpressure on the inlet charge also affects idle as the backpressure=20= > cause fuel droplets to drop out of suspension, which causes surging,=20= > one inlet charge lean the next rich etc. > Cause larger ports and PP. > =A0 > The close to housing butterfly, helps to minimize both, before too=20 > much ( of either) > enters the inlet manifold tube. > =A0 > The RX=A08=A0eliminates the first problem i.e. overlap. No problem = with=20 > the second. > PP can=A0cause the second problem. > DI will eliminate both problems! > George ( down under) > =A0 > Sorry.=A0 Ok, it's not the residue that would be a problem, it's the=20= > back pressure in a combined intake system. > > Tom wrote: > > That is interesting Ed.=A0 Just thinking about it and now=A0it would = seem=20 > that the expelled residue would be the first thing that got sucked=20 > back thru a dedicated runner, also having a negative effect. > > Ed Anderson wrote: > > > Tom, > =A0 > One reason that Jerry would not want to do that is that there is=20 > overlap between intake and exhaust.=A0 That means while one rotor is=20= > trying to suck air in its intake port - the intake port of the other=20= > rotor may be expelling some residue exhaust gas out its intake and=20 > opposing any incoming air.=A0 I think the engine would certainly =A0run=20= > but I don't think you would develop best power.=A0 Now it=A0would = probably=20 > =A0be a different story with the Renesis which by moving the exhaust=20= > ports to the side housings has eliminate the exhaust/intake overlap. > =A0 > FWIW > =A0 > 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,=20 > why would you not feed them both from a single throttle body? > Tom > > Jerry Hey 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,=A0OR does the tube go into the=A0 bellmouth end = OR a > > flange that they both go into. > > George ( down under)=A0 > > > > ----- 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? > > =A0 > > 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' > > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more. > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' > > > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' > --Apple-Mail-2-884473547 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 =20 On Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 03:00 AM, George Lendich wrote: =A0 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 =A0 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. =A0 The close to housing butterfly, helps to minimize both, before too much ( of either) enters the inlet manifold tube. =A0 The RX=A08=A0eliminates the first problem i.e. overlap. No problem with the second. PP can=A0cause the second problem. DI will eliminate both problems! George ( down under) =A0 Sorry.=A0 Ok, it's not the residue that would be a problem, it's the back pressure in a combined intake system. Tom = <<1999,1999,FFFFtomtugan@yahoo.com> wrote: That is interesting Ed.=A0 Just thinking about it and now=A0it 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 < wrote: ArialTom, =A0 ArialOne reason that Jerry would not want to do that is that there is overlap between intake and exhaust.=A0 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.=A0 I think the engine would certainly =A0run but I don't think you would develop best power.=A0 Now it=A0would probably =A0be a different story = with the Renesis which by moving the exhaust ports to the side housings has eliminate the exhaust/intake overlap. =A0 ArialFWIW =A0 ArialEd A ----- Original Message ----- From: = 1999,1999,FFFFTom To: 1999,1999,FFFFRotary 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 = <<1999,1999,FFFFjerryhey@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,=A0OR does the tube go into the=A0 bellmouth end OR = a > flange that they both go into. > George ( down under)=A0 > > ----- 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? > =A0 > 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 ... > > > >=20 > > > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' > < Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. 1999,1999,FFFFLearn = more. < Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - 1999,1999,FFFFJib Jab's 'Second = Term' < Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - 1999,1999,FFFFJib Jab's 'Second = Term' = --Apple-Mail-2-884473547--