X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 73 [XX] (45%) BODY: contains "ambien" obfuscated (23%) URL: contains host with port number (12%) BODY: contains stock spam words (-21%) URL: weird port adjustment Return-Path: Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2019707 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 May 2007 12:45:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.37; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.c38.14ef89ca (60433) for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 12:44:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from WEBMAIL-MC01 (webmail-mc01.webmail.aol.com [64.12.170.78]) by ciaaol-d01.mail.aol.com (v115.11) with ESMTP id MAILCIAAOLD012-ec1146376e70283; Tue, 01 May 2007 12:44:32 -0400 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:44:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: lehanover@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8C95A2721123B26_180C_22BD_WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 25698 Received: from 68.164.239.202 by WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com (64.12.170.78) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 01 May 2007 12:44:32 -0400 Message-Id: <8C95A2721123B26-180C-13A1@WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-IP: 64.12.170.78 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8C95A2721123B26_180C_22BD_WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Those numbers are from a 12A at 2292CCs. The 13B (I think) is 2606CCs, so the 65MM sounds more than adequate. The E production engines have two 38MM chokes and a big street port to produce 228 HP at 9,000 RPM. I have never seen a dyno sheet for one down low where airplanes use them, but 170HP is close. The bridge ported 12A is not happy at 7,000 RPM. Lynn E. Hanover -----Original Message----- From: wrjjrs@aol.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 9:27 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Interesting Lynn, For the comparison that is 2,035 square mm inlet area. Assuming the bigger 13B could use 1/3 More inlet area the total would be 2,646 square mm. The inlet area of the 65 mm throttle body is 3,318 square mm. Seems like a 65 mm TB would be more than up to the task. A 60 mm TB is 2,827 square mm for reference. Plenty big Buly Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: lehanover@aol.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 9:08 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Two 36MM chokes is enough for 244.8 HP at 9,400 RPM, and About 176 HP at 7,000 RPM. I am in California and the dyno sheet is in Hebron Ohio. But I can quote it when I get back if it would help anyone. Lynn E. Hanover -----Original Message----- From: atlasyts@bellsouth.net To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 9:59 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues Thanks for the advise Tracy. I also want to ship the EC/EM to you for updates. I'll be away to Orlando the whole next week and it is a good time for me to do the updates, if it's OK with you. Thanks. Buly > > From: "Tracy Crook" > Date: 2007/04/30 Mon AM 09:18:53 EST > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues > > I doubt that a larger TB will do any better Buly. That's about the same size I have on my Renesis engine and it is very well matched. Several other builders have installed monster sized TBs on Paul's advice and found no improvement and in some cases less power. Contrary to his usual philosophy, bigger is not necessarily better. > > Here's a simple test you can do to remove the 'opinion factor' out of this discussion. If your manifold pressure at WOT is the same as ambient barometric pressure (at low altitude), there is nothing a larger TB will do to improve it. If MP is less than ambient, start looking at your intake path factors like inlet, SCAT tubing (if used), air filter, and anything else in the air path. If none of these are the limiting factor, then and only then should you think about going to a larger TB. > > I'm using a 70mm TB on my 20B which I think is about the minimum size for the 300 HP I expect. It should give good linear throttle response without the "dead travel" of an overly large TB. I'm betting it will pass the MP test mentioned above although I haven't had a chance to test it in flight yet. > > On another topic, Paul has been spreading the story that the EC2 will not work with a CS or variable pitch prop. After hearing this, one builder immediately put his EC2 up for sale without even asking me if this were true. That's incredible to me but a testament to the blind faith that some people put in Paul's opinion. Simply put, Paul's claim is pure nonsense. > > The same applies to his warning to never use anything but Mazda factory apex seals, a thinly veiled negative reference to the "RA Seals" that Bruce Turrentine and I collaborated on. (Full disclosure: Bruce did the major part in their development, I merely offered advice from time to time). > > After years of listening to Paul's claim that my cooling system is not suitable, marginal at best, will not work out west where there are mountains, etc, etc, I declined his offer to market his new book "How to Cool Your Wankel". Much of it is valid data from a number of sources but I simply do not agree with his conclusions on how to apply it. I expect an up-tic in his vitriol : ) > > Tracy Crook > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bulent Aliev > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:05 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Throttle body size > > > I originally planned and tried TA set up on my Cosmo 13B. Soon after > the first few flights removed the turbo and vent NA. At the time did > not pay much attention on the throttle body size, counting on the > turbo to make up for any losses. Today I measured the inside opening > of the TB and was surprised to find it was only 60mm. This is rather > small. Paul Lamar on his visit also said I should get a bigger one. I > wander what size TB other people are using, or any comments and > suggestions on the matter will be helpful. > > Buly > > > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ----------MB_8C95A2721123B26_180C_22BD_WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Those numbers are from a 12A at 2292CCs. The 13B (I think) is 2606CCs, so the 65MM sounds more than adequate. The E production engines have two 38MM chokes and a big street port to produce 228 HP at 9,000 RPM. I have never seen a dyno sheet for one down low where airplanes use them, but 170HP  is close.

The bridge ported 12A is not happy at 7,000 RPM.

Lynn E. Hanover
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: wrjjrs@aol.com
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues

Interesting Lynn,
For the comparison that is 2,035 square mm inlet area. Assuming the bigger 13B could use 1/3 More inlet area the total would be 2,646 square mm. The inlet area of the 65 mm  throttle body is 3,318 square mm. Seems like a 65 mm TB would be more than up to the task. A 60 mm TB is 2,827 square mm for reference. Plenty big Buly
Bill Jepson
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: lehanover@aol.com
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Tue, 1 May 2007 9:08 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues

Two 36MM chokes is enough for 244.8 HP at 9,400 RPM, and About 176 HP at 7,000 RPM. I am in California and the dyno sheet is in Hebron Ohio. But I can quote it when I get back if it would help anyone.

Lynn E. Hanover
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: atlasyts@bellsouth.net
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 9:59 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues

Thanks for the advise Tracy. I also want to ship the EC/EM to you for updates. 



I'll be away to Orlando the whole next week and it is a good time for me to do 



the updates, if it's OK with you.



Thanks.



Buly



> 



> From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>



> Date: 2007/04/30 Mon AM 09:18:53 EST



> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>



> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size/ other "Paul" issues



> 



> I doubt that a larger TB will do any better Buly.  That's about the same size 



I have on my Renesis engine and it is very well matched.  Several other builders 



have installed monster sized TBs on Paul's advice and found no improvement and 



in some cases less power.   Contrary to his usual philosophy, bigger is not 



necessarily better. 



> 



>    Here's a simple test you can do to remove the 'opinion factor' out of this 



discussion.  If your manifold pressure at WOT is the same as ambient barometric 



pressure (at low altitude), there is nothing a larger TB will do to improve it.  



If MP is less than ambient, start looking at your intake path factors like 



inlet, SCAT tubing (if used), air filter, and anything else in the air path.  If 



none of these are the limiting factor, then and only then should you think about 



going to a larger TB.



> 



> I'm using a 70mm TB on my 20B which I think is about the minimum size for the 



300 HP I expect.  It should give good linear throttle response without the "dead 



travel" of an overly large TB.  I'm betting it will pass the MP test mentioned 



above although I haven't had a chance to test it in flight yet.



> 



> On another topic, Paul has been spreading the story that the EC2 will not work 



with a CS or variable pitch prop.   After hearing this, one builder immediately 



put his EC2 up for sale without even asking me if this were true.  That's 



incredible to me but a testament to the blind faith that some people put in 



Paul's opinion.   Simply put, Paul's claim is pure nonsense.  



> 



> The same applies to his warning to never use anything but Mazda factory apex 



seals, a thinly veiled negative reference to the "RA Seals" that Bruce 



Turrentine and I collaborated on.  (Full disclosure: Bruce did the major part in 



their development, I merely offered advice from time to time).  



> 



> After years of listening to Paul's claim that my cooling system is not 



suitable, marginal at best, will not work out west where there are mountains, 



etc, etc,   I declined his offer to market his new book "How to Cool Your 



Wankel".  Much of it is valid data from a number of sources but I simply do not 



agree with his conclusions on how to apply it.  I expect an up-tic in his 



vitriol : )



> 



> Tracy Crook



>   ----- Original Message ----- 



>   From: Bulent Aliev<mailto:atlasyts@bellsouth.net> 



>   To: Rotary motors in aircraft<mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net> 



>   Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:05 PM



>   Subject: [FlyRotary] Throttle body size



> 



> 



>   I originally planned and tried TA set up on my Cosmo 13B. Soon after  



>   the first few flights removed the turbo and vent NA. At the time did  



>   not pay much attention on the throttle body size, counting on the  



>   turbo to make up for any losses. Today I measured the inside opening  



>   of the TB and was surprised to find it was only 60mm. This is rather  



>   small. Paul Lamar on his visit also said I should get a bigger one. I  



>   wander what size TB other people are using, or any comments and  



>   suggestions on the matter will be helpful.



> 



>   Buly



> 



> 



> 



> 



> 



>   --



>   Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/<http://www.flyrotary.com/>



>   Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html>



> 



> 











--



Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
----------MB_8C95A2721123B26_180C_22BD_WEBMAIL-MC01.sysops.aol.com--