Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=166.102.165.79; envelope-from=jskmberki@windstream.net
Message-ID: <002b01cae943$6f72b6f0$01fea8c0@joehomepc>
From: "josrph berki" <jskmberki@windstream.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-4243718@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ejector cooling
Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 11:31:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

I have built my engine installation around an exhaust augmenter.  It is 24"
long and started it's live as a 9"dia stove pipe.  It runs the length of the
cowl and discharges aways from the prop ( pusher)  I will route the headers
forward then up near where the old oil injector pump used to be.  I plan to
us a Spin tech muffler and route that into the augmenter.  The augmenter is
built into the cowl and is removable.  Air comes in a F16 5' long scoop and
flows through the rad and oil cooler and dumps into the cowling.  The only
way out is the augmenter tube.  I may have to build a plenum that  directs
the air behind the rad and oil cooler directly into the augmenter.  This
arangement  causes the alternator and water pump to be mounted on the left
side of the motor and down  almost on top of the radiator.  Radiator is
lying flat below and forward of the motor. The intake and injection stuff
fills up the right side of the cowl and wing root area.  I really envy the
RV side by side and Cozy MkIV guys, they have lots of room .


Joe Berki
Limo EZ
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 9:49 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Ejector cooling


> Marc,
> Could you get some drawings and put them on the list?  I think a lot of
> folks would like to see how it would look and might try it.
>
> Bill B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
> Behalf Of Marc de Piolenc
> Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:24 AM
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Ejector cooling
>
> Mike Wills wrote the quoted passages:
>
> "1) It adds measurable weight."
>
> Compared with what? What if a small addition of weight solves your
> cooling problems and reduces cooling drag. Would you refuse to do it?
>
> "2) It adds complexity."
>
> How complex can a device with no moving parts be?
>
> "3) It adds noise (that alone in hindsight makes me glad I didn't do it
> - god knows I don't need more noise)."
>
> No. Mixer-ejectors are used for noise REDUCTION. Successfully.
>
> "4) And finally, not a single person I spoke with noticed a measurable
> improvement in either cooling performance or drag reduction after adding
> an augmentor, or noticed a measurable reduction after eliminating the
> augmentor."
>
> You seem to have consulted a very select group. In volume 2 of
> Alternative Engines, page 139 et seq, Charles Airesman Jr. documents his
> experiments with a very primitive ejector that generated 6 inches of
> water pressure drop under shop runup conditions. That equates to a
> considerable shaft power savings, more reliable ground cooling and a big
> step forward. And this was Airesman's first attempt.
>
> There are other success stories if you choose to seek them out.
>
> Best regards,
> Marc de Piolenc
>
> Those seem like good enough reasons to pass on an augmentor unless you
> are one of those guys that just has to prove it to yourself.
>
> Mike Wills
>
> --
> 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
>