Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3178422 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:31:29 -0400 Received: from EDWARD (clt25-78-058.carolina.rr.com [24.25.78.58]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i3JCVQC9019499 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:31:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <00bb01c42609$f65dcc80$2402a8c0@EDWARD> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Ed's adjustable intake? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 08:29:29 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Hi Chad, Actually, I intended to see if the "adjustable" length manifold would provide benefits worth the investment in time and effort. The theory indicates I should be able to adjust it to provide additional power for take off and for cruise. Actually, in cruise it would enhance volumetric efficiency (if it works as I hope of course). There are two variables (pulse duration and manifold air temperature) in the EDDIE equations that I do not have empirical data for which can skew the curve one way of the other. Since I don't want to get involved in a lot of instrumentation, time and money to try to determine the values, I hope to get a handle on them empirically by test flights and correlating OAT, RPM and Altitude to narrow down the possible range of these values. If I can correlate OAT with the effect then I can nail dow manifold air temperature, making it possible ( I believe) to get a better handle on the remaining pulse duration variable in the equation. Regarding your question - IF this experiment works out to increase torque/power as the theory indicates and I am able to narrow the values of variables, then one indeed could elect to fabricate a fixed length manifold for a desired rpm such as take off/climb or cruise. However, unless the mechanism I used to vary the length causes problems or is unreliable, I would probably fly maintaining the variable feature. It really depends on whether it shows benefit. It might show that power gain is meaningful for take off but the effect fades at higher rpm or vice versa. In which case, a fixed length would be the logical thing to do. If I do not gain at least 15 HP then the variable feature is probably not worth the hassle in my opinion. So stay tuned, as usual I will report the good, the bad, and the ugly. Ed Ed Anderson RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chad Robinson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 9:34 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Ed's adjustable intake? > Jack Beale wrote: > > > > Yes, he did...! I spoke to him for quite awhile on Wednesday > > afternoon; and, while there, Ed demonstrated his 'adjustable intake'. > > Pretty impressive engineering job. I believe the jury is still out on > > the benefits... > > I don't remember the original point. Did Ed intend to make this a permanent > modification, or to gather performance data for a later, permanent decision > with a fixed-length intake? > > Regards, > Chad > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >