X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1321563 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:54:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.72; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm70aec.bellsouth.net ([65.11.146.34]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060729115315.LIWZ11976.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm70aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:53:15 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.29] (really [65.11.146.34]) by ibm70aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060729115314.KSTW29892.ibm70aec.bellsouth.net@[192.168.0.29]> for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:53:14 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake design 101 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 07:53:17 -0400 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) Ops, I just realized you were talking about intake tubes. Never mind. I just woke up. Bulent "Buly" Aliev FXE Ft lauderdale, FL http://tinyurl.com/s5xw8 On Jul 29, 2006, at 7:35 AM, Joe Berki wrote: > Ed, > Thanks for the explanation. Now i know why they are separated. > Looking at the ports I was wondering if an oval tube shape for the > runners would be appropriate. I don't think that it is available, > however. > > Joe > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Anderson > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:02 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake design 101 > > Hi Joe, > > Each chamber has a secondary and a primary port (six ports have an > auxiliary port which is like an additional secondary port). Even > thought a chamber has a primary and secondary, the primary and > secondary for a port normally have different intake timing. > Additionally, the opening of the intake port generally generates a > very strong pulse (residue exhaust gas bursting out of the intake > when it opens). Since the intake and secondary port of each rotor > are 60 deg out of phase timing wise with the other rotor, the pulse > generated by each port can interfere or assist with intake airflow > (depending on rpm, manifold air temp, density, etc). > > I personally prefer to keep the intake ports separate to preclude > interference. Having said that - I have successfully flow with a > system that combined the secondary intakes and primary intakes, so > what you propose can be done. However, after trying six different > intake configurations, I have found though that I get the best > performance (for our rpm) with 4 separate tubes feeding the > throttle body. Keeping in mind I have a "Plugs Up" installation > which generally gives me a bit more room in running intake tubes. > Other arrangements have been tired and certainly work, so this is > no magic formula - just based on my personal experience. > > Yes, the tuning (length) of the tubes should be determined by the > rpm band that you want the most airflow enhancement. It appears > that a tube length from block to Throttle body between 17 and 21" > generally gives good results. Also, avoid excessive large tubes > diameters as intake air velocity is important in stuffing the > chambers and larger tubes results in less velocity. I found that > 1.25" dia tubes for the primary and 1.5" dia tubes for the > secondary works well. > > I originally had my intakes merged into a two runner Weber style > manifold. A two port Weber style throttle body with two 2" dia > intakes. While this was the cats' meow for a racer turning 9000+ > rpm, it turned out to be disappointing in aircraft use with lower > 5000-6000 rpm. When I replace this "racers'" set up with 4 > smaller dia tubes my ROC increased by 300 fpm immediately. > Unfortunately my original fuel injection system died and I did not > get to collect further data on my old six port 1986 engine before > deciding to switch to a 91 turbo block. > > Hope this helps. > > Ed > > Ed Anderson > Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > Matthews, NC > eanderson@carolina.rr.com > http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW > > 1----- Original Message ----- > From: Joe Berki > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 9:24 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Intake design 101 > > I am using a 89 block for mock up and maybe rebuild. Looking at > the intake ports, there are two ports at the front and rear of the > block then there are two rectangular ports in the center housing > close to each other. Others have fabricated intakes using 4 tubes. > I assume it is OK for the two outboard front and rear of block to > be fed by one tube while the center two ports need to be fed > individually. Is this correct? The length of the tubes is > determined by where on the rpm vs Hp band you want to operate at? > Thanks > > Joe Berki > Limo EZ > > > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.3/395 - Release Date: > 7/21/2006 >