X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTP id 5091542 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:38:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=SOlsIBN44tkg4MqIq+y2aLZdhoA3kHpmiRsLue6rfnM= c=1 sm=0 a=SC71y0a/4S6V9vjVxUojGA==:17 a=2YsOTZaMEmxghgFRoNMA:9 a=ZLIb2pk5UfWxYUPKUjEA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=2FA9Jy0KINFj-MagGpEA:9 a=7umfk5jsqUg5fh7BSdMA:7 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=SC71y0a/4S6V9vjVxUojGA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.175.135 Received: from [174.110.175.135] ([174.110.175.135:56178] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id B0/8E-15242-293B74E4; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 11:37:54 +0000 Message-ID: <5B6712F8BCF34929BDC783FA588E2D5F@EdPC> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Renesis Question Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 07:36:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003A_01CC5A54.E2D36800" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01CC5A54.E2D36800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sam, As you find in this "hobby" there are always trade offs. First, = technically there is no reason you could not do what you propose - = however, you will add weight and complexity. A poor intake affects both = N/A and forced induction - its just with forced induction you are paying = in a different way to overcome any defficiencies in your intake.=20 If going that route, I personally would prefer the centrifugal type = belt/gear driven blower over the roots type which has historically had = the poorest efficiency. On the other hand, if you are not going to = "boost" above ambient pressure - then I think I would concentrate on = getting a good N/A intake. Good luck on your project whichever decision/approach you take. Super = and Turbo chargers have both been used successfully. just my $0.02\ Ed From: Samuel Treffinger=20 Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:01 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Renesis Question I think my brain has had a meltdown: I am thinking about = "supernormalizing" the Renesis engine. Is this even possible. The idea = is to use a by-passable positive displacement type blower (roots = type...probably an eaton m90) fed to an intercooler that then sends air = to the engine. If my thinking is correct, and it probably isn't, this = would eliminate the complex N/A intake, while not over-boosting the = Renesis engine. Also, the supercharger being a positive displacement = blower would in theory produce more boost than is needed by the engine = at all rpm levels, eliminating the "peeky" torque of boosted engines. = The excess (above standard intake) pressure would be controlled via an = automatic or manual waste-gate. Please shoot my idea down if it is = insane, but i would like some constructive criticism if it is available. = Sam ------=_NextPart_000_003A_01CC5A54.E2D36800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sam, As you find in this "hobby" there  are = always=20 trade offs.  First, technically there is no reason you could not do = what=20 you propose - however, you will add weight and complexity.  A poor = intake=20 affects both N/A and forced induction - its just with forced induction = you are=20 paying in a different way to overcome any defficiencies in your=20 intake. 
 
 If going that route, I personally would = prefer the=20 centrifugal type belt/gear driven blower over the roots type which has=20 historically had the poorest efficiency.  On the other hand, if you = are not=20 going to "boost" above ambient pressure - then I think I would = concentrate=20 on getting a good N/A intake.
 
Good luck on your project whichever = decision/approach you=20 take.  Super and Turbo chargers have both been used=20 successfully.
 
just my $0.02\
 
Ed

Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:01 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Renesis Question

I think my brain has had a meltdown: I am thinking about=20 "supernormalizing" the Renesis engine. Is this even possible. The idea = is to use=20 a by-passable positive displacement type blower (roots type...probably = an eaton=20 m90) fed to an intercooler that then sends air to the engine. If my = thinking is=20 correct, and it probably isn't, this would eliminate the complex N/A = intake,=20 while not over-boosting the Renesis engine. Also, the supercharger being = a=20 positive displacement blower would in theory produce more boost than is = needed=20 by the engine at all rpm levels, eliminating the "peeky" torque of = boosted=20 engines. The excess (above standard intake) pressure would be controlled = via an=20 automatic or manual waste-gate. Please shoot my idea down if it is = insane, but i=20 would like some constructive criticism if it is available.=20

Sam
------=_NextPart_000_003A_01CC5A54.E2D36800--