Message

X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 950325 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:34:28 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.66; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm59aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050519203343.ZTMR2395.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm59aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:33:43 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm59aec.bellsouth.net (InterMail vG.1.02.00.01 201-2136-104-101-20040929) with ESMTP id <20050519203342.FFEM8760.ibm59aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Thu, 19 May 2005 16:33:42 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: More MAP measurement questions Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 15:33:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000e01c55cb2$158b4530$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C55C88.2CB53D30" 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 V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C55C88.2CB53D30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It would be interesting to know what the MAP reading is near the intake = port in a setup like Tracy's.=20 =20 Hi Al, I would love to see someone like Ed or Tracy give a MAP reading = for the plenum, and also the runner near the port. My thought was that = their MAP would be low, like mine near the port. Unfortunately, if Bill and Bernie can get near Sea Level MAP readings measured in their runners, = then mine must be restrictive. =20 =20 Whether the MAP reading at the TWM ports is accurate or not, I don't = know. =20 I'm thinking of drilling and tapping a port in the current intake, near = the port, just to see if it reads near the same as the TWM port. I have to = bet that it will, since there's no reason the TWM port should be wrong. =20 =20 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 =20 I agree, but with only 40mm barrels, and my desire to run 7500+ rpm, I = think I'm going to have to upgrade. I may find out that I get a better MAP reading, but no more power, due to losing the velocity, but I have to = find out. =20 =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 =20 You've got to be way below the port size with a 20B for sure. Even my 4-port primary and secondary adds up to 1.77 sq in, which equates to a = 45mm barrel. =20 =20 I am anxiously awaiting your definitive data on performance vs TB barrel diameter. :-)=20 =20 Yeah, I bet you are. About the only thing I've proven definitively, is = that you shouldn't use an evap core for an oil cooler :-) =20 Cheers, Rusty (providing my part of the education and entertainment)* ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C55C88.2CB53D30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

It would be = interesting=20 to know what the MAP reading is near the intake port in a setup like=20 Tracy’s.

Hi Al, I = would love to=20 see someone like Ed or Tracy give a MAP reading for the plenum, and also = the=20 runner near the port. My thought was that their MAP would be = low,=20 like mine near the port. Unfortunately, if Bill and Bernie can get = near=20 Sea Level MAP readings measured in their runners, then = mine must=20 be restrictive.

Whether the MAP reading at the = TWM ports=20 is accurate or not, I don’t know.

I'm thinking of = drilling=20 and tapping a port in the current intake, near the port, just to = see if it=20 reads near the same as the TWM port. I have to bet that it = will,=20 since there's no reason the TWM port should be=20 wrong.

My 44mm diameter barrels (1 per = rotor) may=20 be a bit smaller than I’d like; but I don’t think they are = causing a significant=20 performance penalty. The MAP reading is, of course, not the full = measure=20 of the charge into the chamber. There are the pulses and momentum=20 (velocity) to consider.

I agree, but with = only=20 40mm barrels, and my desire to run 7500+ rpm, I think I'm going to = have to=20 upgrade. I may find out that I get a better MAP = reading,=20 but no more power, due to losing the velocity, but I have to = find=20 out.

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

You've got to be way = below the port=20 size with a 20B for sure. Even my 4-port primary and = secondary adds=20 up to 1.77 sq in, which equates to a 45mm barrel. =20

I am = anxiously awaiting=20 your definitive data on performance vs TB barrel diameter. = J

Yeah, I bet you are. About the = only thing=20 I've proven definitively, is that you shouldn't use an evap core for an = oil=20 cooler :-)

Cheers,

Rusty (providing my part of the education=20 and entertainment)

= ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C55C88.2CB53D30--