Well, Mike, just for comparison, when I had a 2.17:1 and a 68 x72
Performance prop, 5200 -5400 rpm on a nominal 70deg day was what I got for
static.

While I don't claim my set up was the best in the land, I think it was a
pretty fair set up.  So I would say you are doing just fine.

It does not matter how large a throttle body you have when the manifold air
density hits ambient or as close as it can given any losses in the induction
system - that's it.  You can continue to open the throttle body, but you
will not get any more power. However, there is a way!

Looking at some of the variables in the power equation we have:

Power(HP) = Torque * rpm/ 5250, swapping some variables around we get:

RPM = Power/torque.  So this indicates the rpm can increase if either the
power is increased or the torque is decreased. Well, it's difficult to
increase the power by itself(unless you go to forced induction or nitrous
oxide)

But one way to get more rpm (and ultimately more power)  is to lower the
Torque load on the engine.  Decreasing the Torque permits more engine rpm
even if power did not increase.  However we know that more rpm = more air =
more power. The torque load on the engine caused by the prop decreases as
your gear ratio increases.


By going to a 2.85:1 gear ratio that would reduce the load on the engine by
approx 25% (assuming the same prop at the same static rpm).  Now the rpm
power relationship were linear (which it is not with a prop as the load)
then I should have gotten around 6650 rpm with the new gear box - well not
really - due to the cube root relationship between prop rpm and power, it
will be much less of an increase and due to the fact I put on a larger
diameter prop.

But in any case, all this theory aside,  with the 2.85 and 74 x88 prop I now
get engine 6000 - 6200 rpm static or about an 13% increase in rpm.   So
that's using use the same intake, throttle body and engine for both.  But
now because the engine can turn faster (lesser prop load at any specific
rpm).

Now the fact the engine is turning faster means it takes more airflow to
maintain the same (ambient) air density in the manifold. This is because the
higher engine rpm can "suck" that manifold volume (which didn't change) down
faster than it did before.  This in turn means that the throttle position
has to be more open to let a sufficient increase in air flow need to achieve
and maintain that (hopefully) ambient air density in the manifold.

So from what you are reporting, I really don't see anything poor about your
performance with your set up. In fact, it's pretty good.

The new set up gave a noticeable benefit in take off performance (and I do
mean noticeable).  However, the top end was relatively unaffected - although
I did measure an approx 4 mph increase in top aircraft speed.

In any case, that is my experience.

FWIW

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Wills
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 10:36 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle limits was Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo

Thanks Ed. Mentioned this a few months ago and was convinced at least for
the moment, to just fly the plane as is. So that's what I have been doing.

To recap, my engine is an NA 13B built by Bruce Turrentine. It is a second
gen engine with Turbo rotor housings (no exhaust splitter) and high
compression NA rotors. The exhaust uses 1 3/4" x 32" primaries into a Burns
merge collector, 2 1/2" outlet directly into my "muffler". My "muffler" is
essentially a 4 1/2" x 30" tube with some spiral baffles and 2 1/2"
inlet/outlet. The intake uses a modified 87 lower manifold casting port
matched to the engine. The upper manifold uses 4 tubes (1 1/2" and 1 1/4"
dia) over the top of the engine to a small dynamic chamber/plenum directly
over the oil filler port in the center iron housing. The throttle body
copies Tracy's original - a stock second gen 3 throat TB cut down to just 2
ports.

The gearbox is Tracy's first RD-1 with 2.17 gears. Prop is a Warnke 68 x 80
(not sure the pitch number is meaningful - everyone seems to measure it
differently). On the ground static RPM is about 5350 and is reached at about

2/3 throttle opening. In flight max RPM I've seen is about 5750.

The Warnke prop is unique due to the shape. The appearance gets a lot of
comments. I'm really hesitant to mess with it and screw it up unless/until I

can say with certainty that there isnt something else I can do with tweaking

(I'm thinking on the intake side) to improve airflow through the engine.

Hard to believe that there isnt more HP to be had when a hacked 2 barrel TB
is only 2/3 open and I've hit the limit. But like you say there are a lot of

variables.

Mike

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:06 AM
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Throttle limits was  Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo

Hi Mike,

Several things could be causing the situation you see in advancing your
throttle but getting no increased engine rpm.  This is not an uncommon
situation. Ok assuming we are talking naturally aspired engine (no forced
induction), fixed pitch prop and assuming your engine is basically OK (not
weak on compression, etc),

then the most  likely cause is you have simply reach the point at which
where the engine is producing all the power it can - given the prop load
it
sees at that moment.  Once that point is reached, then advancing the
throttle more does not result in more air flow through the engine and
therefore no increase in power nor rpm.  In fact, it can cause the engine
to
run leaner and actually produce less power than a partial closed throttle.

It's sort of the chicken and the egg in that you need more power to
produce
more rpm, but power is dependent on air flow - which is dependent on rpm
which dependent on power produced, etc. {:>).  But to try to be a bit more
helpful, look at it this way.


Basically for every throttle position (at a constant altitude, temp, air
density, etc) there is one associated manifold pressure(air density).
This
manifold pressure is a product of a number of variables, but the most
dominating ones involving the engine are volumetric efficiency,  throttle
position and engine rpm.  Now your volumetric efficiency is more or less
fixed by the intake/exhaust design so we'll eliminate that for the moment.
That leaves throttle position and rpm as controllable variables and your
ambient air density as a fixed (for this discussion).


We know the engine is a positive displacement pump which displaces the
same
volume once each engine cycle. The power the engine produces in that cycle
is limited by the density of the air in the combustion chamber as the
volume
is always a constant (fixed by size of your combustion chamber).  The air
density into the combustion chamber is dependent on the air density in the
intake manifold.

So that leaves us with:  More throttle = higher manifold air density =
 = more oxygen + More fuel(permits more fuel to be burnt) = more power =
more rpm.  That is until you hit the limit - what limit you say?

The limit is that once you have opened the throttle plate sufficiently
that
the air density in the intake manifold is equal to ambient air density (or
as close as its going to get- given intake losses) - then it will not make
any difference (in power) to advance the throttle further.  Once you have
reached that limit, then advancing the throttle further does not further
increase the air density in the manifold and therefore limits the amount
of
fuel you can burn/power you can make.

Clearly if you have a large throttle body you can reach that point with a
smaller opening of the throttle plate than if you have a small throttle
body.

As I said - there can be other causes, but this is the one I think most
folks run into. You can find the same situation even on the ground, where
again once the manifold air density = ambient air density (or as close as
your engine Ve will permit) you stop producing power increase even if you
have throttle travel left.

Therefore if your throttle body is sized so you get max power at 100%
throttle opening a sea level, then with every increase in altitude, you
will
find you have additional throttle travel that produces no increase in
power.
The higher you go in altitude the more throttle travel will be available
that results in no power increase.  This is because the ultimate limit is
based on the ambient air density.

Hope this helped.

Ed




Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Wills
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 12:51 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: N.A. Renesis to turbo

Don,

I'm at about 23 hours and am seeing roughly the same performance on my
RV-4
with a Bruce T built gen 2 13B. My temps are a little cooler. I'm pretty
happy with the performance, but like you say, its not possible to have too
much power. But I don't have room for a turbo and intercooler.

I think there's more power in my NA engine. I'm still a little mystified
by
the fact that at about 1/2 - 2/3 throttle the engine stops making any more
power. But I decided to take several people's advice and just fly it for a
while. I also think there's more speed in it via some drag reduction. A
turbo would be nice to tame the noise though.

I'll be interested in seeing how the Burns muffler works out for you. I'm
not willing to dive into any more muffler experiments for the moment since
my failed trial with the DNA muffler. But sooner or later, and one way or
another I have to quiet this thing down.

Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Don Wallker" <drwalker@gbis.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 6:21 PM
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] N.A. Renesis to turbo

Dear list, Turbo flyers and especially David Leonard,
   I've 16 flying hours on my RV-8 with a Renesis and all of Tracy's
stuff

and a Catto 76/88.  The airplane flys great, just like an RV, no gliding
time, and about 36 hours on the ground. SPECS
Full throttle 8,000'   174 mph indicated, 2450 on the prop, water 185,
oil

205,
Climb out 110 mph, rate of climb, 1250'/min.  Field elevation 5046.

These are not bad numbers, but I would like better.  I've been influenced
by some of the the local jet jocks who say that there is no such thing as
too much horsepower and they are right!   N113BR seems to be performing
about like a 160-170 HP RV.  So I am investigating turboing it!  The idea
is to have a little better than sea level performance on take off
(designed for 210HP N.A.) and turbo normalizing at cruise.  Up to 12000'
would be nice.
During the air races this year, Dave Leonard showed up and I was very
impressed by his airplane.  He was able to turbo and inter cool it and
have it all inside an RV cowl, so I'll  likely base my installation on
his.  Plus, he has been through the learning curve of 3 or so turbos so
he

knows what to do, what not to do and what would be better if he were to
do

it all over again.

I've spent the afternoon looking through the archives, reading as much as
I can find about turbos, and downloading all the photos I can.  Here is
what I am tentatively planning  on doing.
Get one of Techwelding's Renesis exhaust flanges made from 304 SS and
have

my local waterjet guy copy it and make one out of 321SS.  I'll weld 321
SS

and  manifold it together and run it into the bottom of the turbo that
will sit right in front of the exhaust.  The turbo will have additional
support.  Run the turbo outlet air from it through a stock RX-7 inter
cooler sitting in front of the left cheek opening and then out to the
right side of the engine, probably routing it under the PSRU and then up
to a throttle body and manifold.  Then four al tubes over the top of the
engine into a cut down and welded up stock RX-8  intake manifold.  The
exhaust out of the turbo will run down and out in the usual center of the
back of the cowl opening.  I am thinking of trying one of Burns Stainless
all SS mufflers.  It is basically a glass pack, but instead of glass,
they

are using stainless steel wool and they say it is holding up for the
rotary racers.  They make it any length you want and is about 4 lbs with
their SS vs 9 lbs with the hushpower 2 I'm using now.  The combustion air
intake to the turbo will be on the aft left side of the cowl via an NACA
duct opening as Dave's is.
The oil cooler will have to be moved to under the engine.  I will build
up

a fiberglass scoop, probably based on Van's scoop and modify it to have a
bigger opening and be farther forward, closer to the prop.  I will
probably  have the oil cooler made a little larger (Techwelding) than the
one I have now.

That's the basic idea at this point.  I'll finalize my plan, prebuild as
much as possible before tearing the airplane apart and try for as little
down time as possible.  I'm looking for the list's critique here, plus
questions that I will have missed.  The following are a list of questions
that I have.
1. Which turbo should I use, which orientation and who should I use to do
the work, plus what is the approximate price?   TO4 hybrid?  Dave and
Steve Brooks mention BNR turbo as a modifier.  Who manufactures the
turbo?
2. What is the ideal situation with a waste gate?  Full open or not, or,
or?
3. I read about a N.O.oil line solenoid to the turbo bearings.  I assume
that if the Turbo fails, you turn it on to the N.C. position to prevent
oil from being pumped down your exhaust?  I assume the oil that is used
is

routed back to the sump.
4. What size exhaust is optimum?  It seems Dave is running 2.5 inch.
5.  What size throttle body should I use and what would be a good one?
One

throttle body or two? 4.  What size injectors should I use, and where
should the secondaries be placed?   Dave is using 480cc and staging is at
32 inches.  Are you using the same for the primaries and is there an idle
problem with the larger injectors?
5.  Anyone out there turboing a Renesis?  Anyone flying one?
6.  My compression is 9.7 to 1.   Any problems with this higher
compression ratio as long as I use an inter cooler and keep the boost no
higher than 35"?
And lot more questions, but that's all I can think of now.
So If any of you can add any thought, let me know.

Don Walker

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

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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



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

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

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



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