X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4551295 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 20:39:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ewy1 with SMTP id 1so3471190ewy.25 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Y8I/DOOBpZtgxhvsaQAe1rX4ghyzXbx+b0t7S0kf6eU=; b=qJye4bKglHoMRusZblizHdro3Tl5nRhyN5+aE8ic48dl7+ck1nFfabjwr7VemuDZze 01mbxtd6IzFNnQNo56RQu5EjXPFg3rA1ZP/jpLhKAxqoxJYxehnJvt6EqK7nmM8gbxvE eQXs8jEg+fOtM9BrKRYyKCPQrW0Obu6lq2NNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=FUNw8DbjkCy6mLTiot8cJpOBkVJnOHgcq5PMrGJt9aIKGR+IiXZdnFtLzG1k3IRhYd /H4eh6d2BSK2MDfeK4qBSu3kRxzovkwZH0FlGddRLZnuMT+wXpb3jIgcXYDgSn8EaRD9 oux7zI2+GXWLDoLZv4WbRKn8TBYoE2e/fDRws= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.102.1 with SMTP id e1mr2804817ebo.48.1288658308721; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.213.33.131 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 17:38:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 19:38:28 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151747869cba6b2404940724ed --00151747869cba6b2404940724ed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, There are a number of silicone connectors in my intake, but the problem wit= h this is that the runner length needs to be shorter and all of the pieces ar= e butted together now. So, there is nowhere to shorten it without cutting tubing somewhere. As Tracy suggested, I will hold off until I do some more tuning as it is likely that at least some of the problem is the mixture is going lean above 6000 rpm. The more I think about it, the more I think he hit the nail on the head. I'll do some tuning this weekend and see what improvement that gives. Mark On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Bill Bradburry wr= ote: > Mark, > > Can you cut it and place a hose over the cut so you can adjust the length > till you get it figured out? > > Bill B > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Monday, November 01, 2010 11:02 AM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers > > > > Steve, > > > > Agree, but I will proceed carefully else I fall into the "cut it off twic= e > and it is still too short" quandry. > > > > Mark > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, wrote: > > Hi Mark > > > > The two inches would be backed up by the 26B data. > > 2" in the 5500 - 6500 rev range made approx. 1000RPM difference to the pe= ek > torque curve. > > > > Steve > > > > On 01/11/2010, at 8:13 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: > > > > Steve, > > > > I saw that one, but it is a bit illusive as to the actual runner lengths. > I think it is referring to the LeMans 26B setup with variable intakes. I= t > had a section of fixed length, then a slide section. Depending on where = the > slide was set, it had a specific overall length. I think this chart just > shows what the slide section is set at. Not really helpful to us if we > don't know the length of the fixed section. > > > > I found another article titled *Fundamentals of Intake Design* on PL's > site that shows basically the same information, but references total runn= er > length. Based on that chart, it appears that 21.8" would give me peak po= wer > around 6200-6500. My current runner length is 24" which by > extrapolation would put the peak power down around 5500 rpm, which is whe= re > it is now. Looks like I need to shorten my intake runners by 2". > > > > Mark > > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, wrote: > > Hi Mark > > > > I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Paul L. > > Hope this is helpful. Can't remember whether this measurement was to the > rotor face or manifold face. > > > > Steve Izett > > Perth Western Australia > > > > On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > I understand the sausage illustration. But if what you propose were true= , > then why did Mazda make such a major effort to design and implement the > variable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor? That tells me that run= ner > length does make a significant difference on the p-port motor. Also, if > tuned runners didn't matter for peripheral ports, then why do they tune t= he > exhaust runners on the 13B's? Somewhere I have a chart showing the effec= t > of runner length, but I'm not sure that the data is from a p-port motor. > > > > Mark > > On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry > wrote: > > Mark, > > I don=92t think that will work with the PP. You never actually block the > inlet. You just cut off the end of the flow of air as the apex flies by = and > it starts to fill the next chamber. Think of the flow as a long sausage > that is going through a propeller made of a strand of wire 2 or 3 MM thic= k > and being cut into sections. It is never blocked. I doubt that there ar= e > any reflections and if there are, they would be very small and of little > benefit to enhance. > > > > I think that is why the PP is so much stronger than the side port. > > > > Bill B > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:01 PM > > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers > > > > > > > > George, > > > > Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure th= e > runner length to be sure. It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2" OD. > Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust splitters. > > > > So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm. What length intake runner > length would it take to bring peak power up to around 6500 rpm? > > > > Mark > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich > wrote: > > Mark, > > That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, runner leng= th > and exhaust header ID size. > > George (down under) > > > > *From:* Mark Steitle > > *Sent:* Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:38 PM > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers > > > > Bill, > > > > With the current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm still > tuning on the upper addresses of the EC-2. My old engine did best around > 6500-6600 running the same prop. So, I feel there is something that isn'= t > quite right on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners too short, > intake or exhaust too restrictive, timing off a bit, etc. It definitely > makes more hp than the old motor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel t= hat > it should be producing more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range. > > > > So, things are still developing. Yesterday, I reinstalled the old > air-filter box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the design. = I > haven't flown it yet to see if there is any improvement, but I hope to se= e > at least a little improvement. > > > > On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy > between the rpm readout of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller. = I > have an optical tach that I will be using to determine which one is in > error. > > > > Stay tuned (no pun intended), > > Mark > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry > wrote: > > Mark, > > It would seem that if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine rpm= s > would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airspeed and > start to slow down because the prop was just not taking a big enough bite= . > Conversely, it seems that if you increased the prop pitch, the engine rpm= s > would decrease, but the airspeed would increase up to some point and then > after that, an increase in pitch would cause a decrease in airspeed becau= se > you are taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull it. > Somewhere in there is a =93Sweet Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives the = highest > airspeed. Lets say that this question assumes that you are at WOT and 85= 00 > feet, which should give you roughly a 75% power output. Do you know wher= e > that sweet spot is with your propeller? > > > > Bill B > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] *O= n > Behalf Of *Mark Steitle > > > *Sent:* Thursday, October 28, 2010 10:00 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] EM2 Numbers > > > > Rotarians, > > > > Things have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would pos= t > this picture of my EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGLS) to > Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. I was level at 8500msl when taking the > picture. A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b. > > > > Please disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured afte= r > the first cooler and before the second cooler. Oil temp readings out of = the > second cooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a > few degrees. > > > > Leaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the spe= ed > drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. You pay dearly f= or > that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much fun to slow down. > > > > Mark S. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > From: *Mark* > Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM > Subject: > To: msteitle@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > The contents of this email are confidential and intended only for the nam= ed > recipients of this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, you > are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distributio= n > or the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. Please notify = the > sender immediately and then delete/destroy the e-mail and any printed > copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of th= e > law. > > > > > > > --00151747869cba6b2404940724ed Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,=A0

There are a number of silicone connectors in my= intake, but the problem with this is that the runner length needs to be sh= orter and all of the pieces are butted together now. =A0So, there is nowher= e to shorten it without cutting tubing somewhere.=A0

As Tracy suggested, I will hold off until I do some mor= e tuning as it is likely that at least some of the problem is the mixture i= s going lean above 6000 rpm. =A0The more I think about it, the more I think= he hit the nail on the head. =A0I'll do some tuning this weekend and s= ee what improvement that gives.

Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2= 010 at 7:22 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Mark,

Can you cut it and= place a hose over the cut so you can adjust the length till you get it figured out?

Bill B

=A0<= /p>

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2= 010 11:02 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=A0

Steve,

=A0

Agree, but I will proceed carefully else I=A0fall in= to the "cut it off twice and it is still too short" quandry.

=A0

Mark=A0

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 8:58 AM, <stevei@carey.asn.au> wrote:

Hi Mark

=A0

The two inches would be backed up by the 26B data.= =A0

2" in the 5500 - 6500 rev range made approx. 10= 00RPM difference to the peek torque curve.

=A0

Steve=A0

=A0

On 01/11/2010, at 8:13 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:



Steve,

=A0

I saw that one, but it is a bit illusive as to the a= ctual runner lengths.=A0 I think it is referring to the LeMans 26B setup with=A0variable intakes.=A0 It had a section of fixed length, then a slide section.=A0 Depending on where the slide was set, it had a specific overall length.=A0 I think this chart just shows what the slide section is set at.=A0 Not really helpful to us if we don't know the length of the = fixed section.=A0

=A0

I found another article=A0titled Fundamentals of=A0Intake Design=A0on PL's site that shows basically the same information, but references total runner length.=A0 Based on that chart, it appears that 21.8" would give me peak power around 6200-6500.=A0 My current runner length is 24" which by extrapolation=A0would put the peak power down around 5500 rpm, which is where it=A0is now.=A0 Looks like I need to shorten=A0my intake runners=A0by 2".=A0

=A0

Mark

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 4:09 AM, <stevei@carey.asn.au> wrote:=

Hi Mark

=A0

I have attached the Leman intake dimensions from Pau= l L.

Hope this is helpful. Can't remember whether thi= s measurement was to the rotor face or manifold face.

=A0

Steve Izett

Perth Western Australia=A0

<Lemans-torque-curves3.jpg>

On 01/11/2010, at 8:40 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:

=A0

Bill,

=A0

I understand the sausage illustration.=A0 But if=A0w= hat you propose=A0were true, then why did Mazda=A0make such a major effort to design and implement=A0the variable intake on their LeMans 26B p-port motor?=A0 That tells me that=A0runner length=A0does make a significant difference on the p-port motor.=A0 Also, if tuned runners didn't matter= for peripheral ports, then why do they tune the exhaust runners on the 13B'= s?=A0 Somewhere I have a chart showing the effect of runner length, but I'm n= ot sure that=A0the data=A0is from a=A0p-port motor.

=A0

Mark

On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Bill Bradburry <= bbradburry@be= llsouth.net> wrote:

Mark,

I don=92t think th= at will work with the PP.=A0 You never actually block the inlet.=A0 You just cut off the end of the flow of air as the apex flies by and it starts to fill the next chamber.=A0 Think of the flow as a long sausage that is going through a propeller made of a strand of wire 2 o= r 3 MM thick and being cut into sections.=A0 It is never blocked. =A0I doubt that there are any reflections and if there are, they would be very small a= nd of little benefit to enhance.

=A0<= /p>

I think that is wh= y the PP is so much stronger than the side port.

=A0<= /p>

Bill B

=A0<= /p>

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Sunday, October 31, 20= 10 8:01 PM


To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject:= [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=A0

=A0

=A0

George,

=A0

Sorry for the delayed reply, but I had to go to the hangar and measure the runner length = to be sure.=A0 It is 24" bellmouth to rotor face, 2" OD.=A0 Exhaust is 2" OD also, running the stock 20b exhaust splitters.=

=A0

So, my power seems to peak around 6000 rpm.=A0 What length intake runner length would it take to bring=A0peak power=A0up to around 6500 rpm?=A0

=A0

Mark=A0

On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 3:53 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:

=A0=A0 Mark,

=A0=A0=A0 That's interesting; can you tell me what is your PP size, runner length= and exhaust header ID=A0size.

=A0=A0=A0=A0George (down under)=A0

=A0

From: Mark Steitle

Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 7:38 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EM2 Numbers

=A0

Bill,=A0

=A0

With the current setup, it appears to be around 6000-6100, but I'm still tuning on the u= pper addresses of the EC-2. =A0My old engine did best around 6500-6600 running the same prop. =A0So, I feel there is something that isn't quite right = on the new P-Port motor... maybe intake runners too short, intake or exhaust t= oo restrictive, timing off a bit, etc. =A0It definitely makes more hp than the old motor did in the 5000-6000 range, but I feel that it should be producin= g more hp than I'm seeing in the 6000-7000 range. =A0

=A0

So, things are still developing. =A0Yesterday, I reinstalled the old air-filter box which has a ram-air feature incorporated into the design. =A0I haven't flown = it yet to see if there is any improvement, but I hope to see at least a little improvement.

=A0

On a side note, I have determined that there is a 250 rpm discrepancy between the rpm readout= of the EM-2 and that of the M/T prop controller. =A0I have an optical tach tha= t I will be using to determine which one is in error. =A0=A0

=A0

Stay tuned (no pun intended),

Mark

=A0

=A0

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net= > wrote:

Mark,

It would seem that= if you flattened the pitch of the prop, the engine rpms would increase, but at some point, you would begin to lose airs= peed and start to slow down because the prop was just not taking a big enough bi= te.=A0 Conversely, it seems that if you increased the prop pitch, the engine rpms would decrease, but the airspeed would increase up to some point and then a= fter that, an increase in pitch would cause a decrease in airspeed because you a= re taking too big a bite and the engine just can not pull it.=A0 Somewhere in there is a =93Sweet Spot=94 of propeller rpm that gives the highest airspee= d.=A0 Lets say that this question assumes that you are at WOT and 8500 feet, whic= h should give you roughly a 75% power output.=A0 Do you know where that sweet spot is with your propeller?

=A0

Bill B

=A0

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle


Sent: Thursday, October 28, = 2010 10:00 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] EM2 Num= bers

=A0

Rotarians,

=A0

Things have been a bit quiet on the list lately, so I thought I would post this picture of my = EM-2 taken on a trip from Galveston, TX (KGLS) to Lockhart, TX (50R) yesterday. =A0I was level at 8500msl when taking the picture. =A0A/C is a Lancair ES (4-place), engine is a n/a p-ported 20b. =A0

=A0

Please disregard the oil temp as the reading on the EM-2 is measured after the first cooler = and before the second cooler. =A0Oil temp readings out of the second cooler (measured at the oil filter pad) track water temps within a few degrees.

=A0

Leaned to "Economy Cruise" and dial the prop down to 1800 rpm and the speed drops down about 15 mph and fuel burn drops to 9.1 gph. =A0You pay dearly for that 15 mph but sometimes it is just too much fun to slow down.<= /font>

=A0

Mark S.=

---------- Forwarded message ----------


From: Mark <msteitle@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Subject:
To: msteitle@gmail.= com








Sent from my iPhone

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

The contents of thi= s email are confidential and intended only for the named recipients of this e-mail. If you have rece= ived this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution or the information contained in this e-mail is prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately and then delete/destroy th= e e-mail and any printed copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent of the law.

=A0

=A0

=A0


--00151747869cba6b2404940724ed--