X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTPS id 5091954 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 20:17:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=samuel.treffinger@gmail.com Received: by fxd18 with SMTP id 18so3263992fxd.25 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:16:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=se3+RkQexAYAwU8x6EBLrhtSidhk7FZpXB1d590oSEY=; b=X9081BVbSEhuOopqk+jD+MxuieSBDZOmXmlgekxjvRXepScdHlHfdQy4fGmHGwubg0 RvEskVntFmncMC1yywDwYF+fUGBwQgrEp2Mw83KVyEuVCcbdOXRl2MILhaRHAniAJRTl U3H/Snz2ReXkU59Hl9QLwShdXRxR/DYs+S368= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.5.19 with SMTP id 19mr4596665fat.26.1313367406978; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.126.129 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:16:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 19:16:46 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 20B RV-8 altitude test results From: Samuel Treffinger To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517478d2cc0a83504aa802d96 --001517478d2cc0a83504aa802d96 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Where can someone get a 20 b motor???? On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Tracy wrote: > Got the coils changed out from RX-8s to a mixture of LS2 and LS1 coils and > installed in an improved air box. Coils much cooler now. > > Ran with auto pilot on to hold altitude steady during tests so I think they > are pretty accurate. I was mainly interested in fuel economy and speed at > various fuel flows. All these results were at 14,000 feet. I'll do some > at 18,000 where the results should look even better next time. I forgot to > dress warmer because the temp on ground was 94 F. OAT during test was 39F. > Speeds are TAS. > > 6.0 GPH 169 mph. 28.1 mpg > 7.0 GPH. 180 mph. 25.7 mpg > 8.0. GPH. 200 mph. 25 mpg > 10.0 GPH. 224 mph. 22.4 mpg > > The manifold pressures sounded a bit unrealistic during test but 2 > different instruments agreed so I think they are right. The only one I > wrote down was at 7 GPH where it was at 13.9" Hg and rpm was 5174. The > sweet spot seems to be very close to 8.0 GPH. I think that is where the > rpm gets into the area where the fuel charge is stratified by the > centrifugal force at around 5400 rpm and the mixture can be aggressively > leaned. > > The goal is to get 30 mpg at 200 MPH at 18000 ft. If I can get there I can > fly non stop from FL to CO with only a small aux fuel tank. > > Tracy > Sent from my iPad > > On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Charlie England > wrote: > > > Who's flying one (P-ported *Renesis*), & does it meet *both* criteria? > > Clarification: If I read correctly, the question was about complex intake > vs adding a supercharger & using it to 'normalize' only back to the output > of a properly done intake. My point is that a manifold like Tracy's is very > simple to build (much simpler than anything for an aftermarket > supercharger), and the power (and efficiency) is there with much less weight > & much higher reliability. Higher *output* & high altitude benefits are > still there, but that wasn't the question. > > Obviously, after the P-port is done the intake is simpler (by 2 tubes), but > not that many homebuilders have the resources to do the P-port mod, which > makes the manifold look like child's play. > > Charlie > > > On 08/14/2011 10:02 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: > > Charlie, > > Maybe you meant "...best power of all side ported rotaries". I'm pretty > sure that a p-ported 13B would easily produce more power than a side port > motor, assuming they do a good job on the intake and exhaust. The nice > thing about a p-port motor is the intake is simpler and easier to build than > a side port intake. > > Mark S. > > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Charlie England < > ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> On the subject of Renesis intake complexity, take a look at Tracy's >> intake (pic from his web site). >> >> >> >> >> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/renesis_engine.htm >> >> Can't get much simpler, & as far as I know, he has the best power numbers >> and the best efficiency numbers of anyone flying. His intake tubes are now >> longer than in this shot, but as you can see from the pic, adjusting tube >> length (retuning) is pretty straightforward. >> >> Charlie >> >> >> >> >> On 08/14/2011 06:36 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> 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 >> *Sent:* Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:01 AM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *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 >> >> >> > > > --001517478d2cc0a83504aa802d96 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Where can someone get a 20 b motor????

On= Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Tracy <rwstracy@gmail.com> wrote:
Got the coils changed out from RX-8s to a mix= ture of LS2 and LS1 coils and installed in an improved air box. =A0 Coils m= uch cooler now.

Ran with auto pilot on to hold alt= itude steady during tests so I think they are pretty accurate. =A0I was mai= nly interested in fuel economy and speed at various fuel flows. =A0 All the= se results were at 14,000 feet. =A0I'll do some at 18,000 where the res= ults should look even better next time. =A0I forgot to dress warmer because= the temp on ground was 94 F. =A0 OAT during test was 39F. =A0Speeds are TA= S. =A0

6.0 GPH =A0 169 mph. =A028.1 mpg
7.0 GPH. =A0= 180 mph. =A025.7 mpg
8.0. GPH. =A0 200 mph. 25 mpg
10.= 0 GPH. =A0224 mph. 22.4 mpg

The manifold pressures= sounded a bit unrealistic during test but 2 different instruments agreed s= o I think they are right. =A0 The only one I wrote down was at 7 GPH where = it was at 13.9" Hg and rpm was 5174. =A0 The sweet spot seems to be ve= ry close to 8.0 GPH. =A0 I think that is where the rpm gets into the area w= here the fuel charge is stratified by the centrifugal force at around 5400 = rpm and the mixture can be aggressively leaned.

The goal is to get 30 mpg at 200 MPH at 18000 ft. =A0If= I can get there I can fly non stop from FL to CO with only a small aux fue= l tank.

Tracy
Sent from my iPad

On Au= g 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:


=20 Who's flying one (P-ported *Renesis*), & does it meet *both* criteria?
Clarification: If I read correctly, the question was about complex intake vs adding a supercharger & using it to 'normalize' o= nly back to the output of a properly done intake. My point is that a manifold like Tracy's is very simple to build (much simpler than anything for an aftermarket supercharger), and the power (and efficiency) is there with much less weight & much higher reliability. Higher *output* & high altitude benefits are still there, but that wasn't the question.

Obviously, after the P-port is done the intake is simpler (by 2 tubes), but not that many homebuilders have the resources to do the P-port mod, which makes the manifold look like child's play.

Charlie

On 08/14/2011 10:02 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:
Charlie, =A0

Maybe you meant "...best power of all side ported rotaries". =A0I'm pretty sure that a p-ported 13B would = easily produce more power than a side port motor, assuming they do a good job on the intake and exhaust. =A0The nice thing about a p-port motor is the intake is simpler and easier to build than a side port intake. =A0

Mark S.

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On the subject of Renesis intake complexity, take a look at Tracy's intak= e (pic from his web site).
<mime-attachment.jpg>
http://www.rotaryavia= tion.com/renesis_engine.htm
Can't get much simpler, & as far as I know, he has the best power numbers and the best efficiency numbers of anyone flying. His intake tubes are now longer than in this shot, but as you can see from the pic, adjusting tube length (retuning) is pretty straightforward.

Charlie




On 08/14/2011 06:36 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:
Sam, As you find in this "hobby" there=A0 are always trade offs.=A0 = First, technically there is no reason you could not do what you propose - however, you will add weight and complexity.=A0 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.=A0<= /div>
=A0
=A0If 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.=A0 On the other hand, if you are not going to "boost&q= uot; above ambient pressure=A0- then I think I would concentrate on getting a good N/A intake.
=A0
Good luck on your project whichever decision/approach you take.=A0 Super and Turbo chargers have both been used successfully.
=A0
just my $0.02\
=A0
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 "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 boost= ed 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




=20

--001517478d2cc0a83504aa802d96--