X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 949919 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:42:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050519164150.ENDI26972.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 12:41:50 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: More MAP measurement questions Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 09:41:50 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c55c91$a80ffac0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55C56.FBB122C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55C56.FBB122C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: More MAP measurement questions =20 What's new about this theory? This is what I was telling you a week or = two ago. :-) I apologize for lack of clarity, causing you to have to re-invent this theory. =20 Al (Also running TWM TB)=20 =20 =20 That's now the old theory Al. The latest theory is that you and I are = just kidding ourselves, and the restriction is real. I just wish people like Bill and Bernie would have the decency to lie to me about their readings = :-) =20 Our intake designs are different; so perhaps the concerns are as well. = I have very short runners downstream from the TB, so the MAP reading is = very close to what is seen at the ports. It would be interesting to know = what the MAP reading is near the intake port in a setup like Tracy's. = Whether the MAP reading at the TWM ports is accurate or not, I don't know. My = 44mm diameter barrels (1 per rotor) may be a bit smaller than I'd like; but I don't think they are causing a significant performance penalty. The MAP reading is, of course, not the full measure of the charge into the = chamber. There are the pulses and momentum (velocity) to consider. =20 It might be good to have the TB barrel x-section area roughly matched to = the port area. I can't find my calcs now, but I think the combined primary = and secondary ports on my engine is over 3 sq. in., like maybe 3.5; and the = TB barrel is 2.34 sq. in. So maybe a 20% larger diameter would give better high end performance, at some expense to throttle response. =20 I am anxiously awaiting your definitive data on performance vs TB barrel diameter. :-) =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55C56.FBB122C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: More MAP measurement questions

 

What’s new about this theory?  This is what I was telling you a week or = two ago. J

I apologize for lack of clarity, causing you to have to re-invent this = theory.

 

Al (Also running TWM TB) 

 

 

That's now the = old theory Al.  The latest theory is that you and I are just kidding = ourselves, and the restriction is real.  I just wish people like Bill and Bernie = would have the decency to lie to me about their readings = :-)  

 

Our intake designs are different; = so perhaps the concerns are as well.  I have very short runners = downstream from the TB, so the MAP reading is very close to what is seen at the = ports.  It would be interesting to know what the MAP reading is near the intake = port in a setup like Tracy’s.  Whether the MAP = reading at the TWM ports is accurate or not, I don’t know.  My 44mm = diameter barrels (1 per rotor) may be a bit smaller than I’d like; but I = don’t think they are causing a significant performance penalty.  The MAP = reading is, of course, not the full measure of the charge into the = chamber.  There are the pulses and momentum (velocity) to consider.

 

It might be good to have the TB = barrel x-section area roughly matched to the port area.  I can’t = find my calcs now, but I think the combined primary and secondary ports on my engine = is over 3 sq. in., like maybe 3.5; and the TB barrel is 2.34 sq. in.  So = maybe a 20% larger diameter would give better high end performance, at some = expense to throttle response.

 

I am anxiously awaiting your = definitive data on performance vs TB barrel diameter. J

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C55C56.FBB122C0--