|
|
Ah, from the complex to the pure and simple.
John, It certainly has appeal due to its simplicity. That would
certainly heat up the air. You, of course, would not be able to cool the air
that way. So I guess you would run your DIE calcuations like for 250F to
determine the length assuming that your max HEAT would produce that temp.
Then backing off of the heat would in effect be "cooling" the intake air
temp.
Using the primary port of a stock 13B NA for an DIE rpm of 6000 rpm would
require a manifold with port-port length of 35.18". for an intake air temp
of 250F.
So if we let off the heat so the temp backs down to say 150F we have DIE
at 5358 rpm for the 35.18" manifold. Yep! conceptually the idea appears to
work fine.
Now the only thing that does not appeal to me is we generally like cool
denser air rather than heated air for the intake. But, hey! the concept
certainly has simplicity on its side. I think there is some rule of thumb
that tells you how much power you loose for each 10F raise in intake temp,
but I can't recall what it is. So if the loss in power due to the heated
air is minor compared to the potential DIE power, the concept might be a
winner.
Keep those ideas a coming
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 7:42 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE Summary
> > An interesting "Brain Fart" Jim.
> Yes indeed. Sometimes they're so loud he wakes himself up. :)
>
> But, rather than trying to control temp with evaporation, why not simply
> install a thermostatically controlled electric heater element in (or
> against) the manifold. Hot day, low down, it's off. Cold day, high up it's
> on full. Want the EDDIE at a lower rpm today? Turn the thermostat up (or
> down).
> John Slade
>
>
> >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|