Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2585512 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:56:16 -0400 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with SMTP id h8JBs14S021756 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:54:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001201c37ea4$b4b36d60$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Whats good for Racing is necessarily good for aircraft was Re: Intake questions Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 07:53:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C37E83.2D4DE100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C37E83.2D4DE100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Greetings, =20 Hi, Rusty.....I purchased the short intake manifold from Dave = Atkins. He claims he has more than adequate power with his, and that = idle is also good. Look at all the race cars and racing motorcycles = that have the carbs or throttle bodies right next to the engine. They = seem to generate a lot of power that way. For what it's worth. Paul Conner Paul is correct. There are any number of intake configurations = that will produce adequate power for the RV-6. I am told that Dave = Atkin's intake permits him to generate approx 160HP which is certainly = adequate for an RV and could even provide thrilling performance in a low = weight RV =20 Now, I will be the first to say, if you want to experiment or if = you find for cost, configuration or convience reasons you want to try = some particular intake configuration, please do so. I've been wrong = before and I am certain will be in the future - but, do it with your = eyes open and understanding of what performance might reasonably be = expected. Best Regards Ed Anderon Hi, Ed.....thanks for the post and education. I guess I was = kinda thinking that if Dave Atkins's RV performs that well with his = short intake manifold, my aerodynamically cleaner canard should perform = equally to, or hopefully better? The primary reason I liked his intake = was because it is truly "bolt on" and go. I tried to buy the wrap-over = manifold from Powersport, but their reply was...."sorry, we can't help = you". I'm sure that experimenters such as yourself, who know and = understand intake systems better than I, can tweak more power out of = these engines. The latest effort I am going to attempt is a wrap-over = system similar to Paul Lamar's, but with only two intake runners. The = intake manifold I ordered is cast so that the four intakes go into two = almost immediately, and from there I will make my aluminum tubing wrap = over the top of the engine (as close as possible for cowling clearance) = and then terminate with my TWM throttlebody with the built-in injectors. = )(Also purchased from Dave Atkins, because it was another "bolt on"). = Did I mention that I like bolt-ons? I truly appreciate the time and = effort you invest into improving these rotary installations for = aircraft. Thanks again. Paul Conner Hi Paul, Nothing wrong with your logic nor bolt-ons. Just = having tried two manifolds with shorter and bigger tubes, I just did not = find they did anything powerwise at the rpms we operate at. Sounds like you have a "Racing Beat Webber" style manifold with = the four into two configuration. I think you will find your latest = thinking on your intake more power productive than the former. My study = of the DIE process has convinced me that there were some reasons for = Mazda to keep the primary and secondary runners seperate on their = engine. It has also convinced me that those reasons are not really = germane for aircraft use. But, like so much - it depends{:>) The current induction design I am working on also has the four = into two design showing you at least I put my effort where my mouth is = {:>) I don't recall the configuration of your engine, whether a = stock block, which style block, or whether you have had any porting = done. It all has an effect. If I knew the secrets of induction magic - I would probably be = inclinded to go into business with it {:>). Heck, I don't even have a = flow bench or a dyno! I have studied and tried the "Organ Pipe", = "Helmholtz Resonator" and several others - all have some merit and all = tend to fall short when applied to the pulsating, changing airflow of = the Internal combustin engine. The one that I think provides answers = that correlate best with realitity is the Finite-Amplitude Wave (FAW) = theory. That seems to be supported by what I am finding on software = simulations of ICs. However, it is not a simple plug and play equation = like the other approaches, its an almost agonizing iterative application = of the FAW theory mainly to predicticting manifold performance and then = combined with other thermodynamic and combustion models for total engine = performance (simulated of course). From what I have read the = correlation with these more advanced models with reality is very good = and that some of the more successful racing teams are buying these = expensive simulations because they enable them to quickly throw out some = the bad ideas and then concentrate on the more promissing ones. Before, = it was mostly expensive cut and try with hardware. Well, enough, got to get away from the computer and out to the = workshop. Best Regards Ed ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C37E83.2D4DE100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
-----  Greetings,
 
Hi, = Rusty.....I=20 purchased the short intake manifold from Dave Atkins. He claims = he has=20 more than adequate power with his, and that idle is also = good. =20 Look at all the race cars and racing motorcycles that have the = carbs or=20 throttle bodies right next to the engine.  They seem to = generate a=20 lot of power that way. For what it's worth.
 
 Paul=20 Conner
 
 
 
Paul is = correct.=20 There are any number of intake configurations that will produce = adequate=20 power for the RV-6. I am told that Dave Atkin's intake = permits him=20 to generate approx 160HP which is certainly adequate for an RV = and could=20 even provide thrilling performance in a low weight=20 RV
 
Now, I = will be the=20 first to say, if you want to experiment or if you find for cost, = configuration or convience reasons you want to try some = particular=20 intake configuration, please do so.  I've been wrong before = and I=20 am certain will be in the future - but, do it with your eyes = open and=20 understanding of what performance might reasonably be=20 expected.
 
Best=20 Regards
 
Ed=20 Anderon
 
 
 
Hi, = Ed.....thanks=20 for the post and education. I guess I was kinda thinking that if = Dave=20 Atkins's RV performs that well with his short intake manifold, = my=20 aerodynamically cleaner canard should perform equally to, or = hopefully=20 better?  The primary reason I liked his intake was because = it is=20 truly "bolt on" and go.  I tried to buy the wrap-over = manifold from=20 Powersport, but their reply was...."sorry, we can't help = you".  I'm=20 sure that experimenters such as yourself, who know and = understand intake=20 systems better than I, can tweak more power out of these = engines. =20 The latest effort I am going to attempt is a wrap-over system = similar to=20 Paul Lamar's, but with only two intake runners. The intake = manifold I=20 ordered is cast so that the four intakes go into two almost = immediately,=20 and from there I will make my aluminum tubing wrap over the top = of the=20 engine (as close as possible for cowling clearance) and then = terminate=20 with my TWM throttlebody with the built-in injectors. )(Also = purchased=20 from Dave Atkins, because it was another "bolt on").   = Did I=20 mention that I like bolt-ons?  I truly appreciate the time = and=20 effort you invest into improving these rotary installations for=20 aircraft.  Thanks again.  Paul = Conner
 
Hi = Paul, =20 Nothing wrong with your logic nor bolt-ons.  Just having = tried two=20 manifolds with shorter and bigger tubes, I just did not find = they did=20 anything powerwise at the rpms we operate = at.
 
Sounds = like you=20 have a "Racing Beat Webber" style manifold with the four into = two=20 configuration.  I think you will find your latest thinking = on your=20 intake more power productive than the former.  My study of = the DIE=20 process has convinced me that there were some reasons for Mazda = to keep=20 the primary and secondary runners seperate on their = engine.  It has=20 also convinced me that those reasons are not really germane for = aircraft=20 use.  But, like so much - it = depends{:>)
 
The = current=20 induction design I am working on also has the four into two = design=20 showing you at least I put my effort where my mouth is=20 {:>)
 
I don't = recall the=20 configuration of your engine, whether  a stock block, which = style=20 block, or whether you have had any porting done.  It all = has an=20 effect.
 
If I = knew the=20 secrets of induction magic - I would probably be inclinded to go = into=20 business with it {:>).  Heck, I don't even have a flow = bench or=20 a dyno! I have studied and   tried the "Organ Pipe",=20 "Helmholtz Resonator" and several others - all have some merit = and all=20 tend to fall short when applied to the pulsating, changing = airflow of=20 the Internal combustin engine.  The one that I think = provides=20 answers that correlate best with realitity is the = Finite-Amplitude Wave=20 (FAW) theory.  That seems to be supported by what I am = finding=20 on software simulations of ICs.  However, it is not a = simple plug=20 and play equation like the other approaches, its an almost = agonizing=20 iterative application of the FAW theory mainly to predicticting = manifold=20 performance and then combined with other thermodynamic and = combustion=20 models for total engine performance (simulated of course).  = From=20 what I have read the correlation with these more advanced models = with=20 reality is very good and that some of the more successful racing = teams=20 are buying these expensive simulations because they enable them = to=20 quickly throw out some the bad ideas and then concentrate on the = more=20 promissing ones.  Before, it was mostly expensive cut and = try with=20 hardware.
 
Well, = enough, got=20 to get away from the computer and out to the=20 workshop.
 
Best=20 Regards
 
Ed
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C37E83.2D4DE100--