Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #40762
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Supercharging
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:06:41 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Ed Anderson wrote:
Gee, Ernest, I don't know.

But, perhaps we can get a handle on it starting with  F = m*a.

lets take one cubic foot of air and assume no losses in accelerating it from 0 to 150 Mph.  Now we need a time interval and it has to be around 1 rpm (one revolution of the blades) so that is approx 60/7000 = 0.00857 sec/rev. Since we want 600 cfm of air to flow at 150 mph we need to have the blower flow 600/7000 = 0.857 CF per revolution.  0.857 * 7000 = 600 CFM - checks!

At 7000 rpm the e shaft needs 0.00857 sec per rev.  So  we want to accelerate 0.857 CF of air from zero to 150 mph in 0.00857 seconds.

A cubic foot of air has a mass of 0.0765 lbs at sea level.  So M = 0.0765 lbs.  We need to accelerate it to 150 mph or 220 ft/sec velocity in 0.0086 seconds.  So dV/dt = A = 200 ft/sec/0.0086 sec = 25,666 ft/sec^2 or 25666/32 = 802 Gs acceleration.  Therefore F = m*a = 0.0765 * 25666 =  1963.5 lbf/sec = 1963.5*0.001818 = 3.56 HP  Since we continuously need to accelerate that amount of air it would appear that not counting for any losses that you would need approx 3.56 HP or approx 1/2 of the amount your increase air supply might contribute to power increase in the engine.
I've been double checking your numbers, and I think I have a correction.

-"We want to accelerate 0.857 CF of air from zero to 150 mph in 0.00857 seconds" and "A cubic foot of air has a mass of 0.0765 lbs at sea level. "  So M = .857 * .0765 = .0656

- You change the velocity from 220 ft/sec to 200ft/sec, but I think this was just a typo, and you're actually doing the numbers in a seperate calculator.  The numbers I'm getting don't come up exactly with what you have...but close.

- With  the correction, F=m*a=0.0656*25670=1684 lbf/sec * 0.001818 => 3.06 Hp.

This is for delivery of 600CFM.  300CFM would use half of that.  Even 50% efficiency should yield significantly more power than is used.

I did have some numbers before, but they're just marketing numbers and therefor offer no guarantee of resembling reality.  In fact, Tanaka's claims appear to be very suspect.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster