X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-yw0-f52.google.com ([209.85.213.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTPS id 5091894 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:13:36 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.52; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7so7581742ywo.25 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:12:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=RYgqdlmQ/8TpB3livj8hNPZ3o6t26wTMHshHPAHxej0=; b=LMWA/xSWldvujx+3NvGaG8jDAXS06UOyONhJb179IPjLEF9vLVErejqdc1+4qVOe3t BCfoheKwHj65W9l7QZK1ROIoQ5t1LC0J9144QSs6TEM2pMBsye5BhpMB8dy5Hj9OCY5Q xp6IYV30m0CP8yhTuFREZjx/dWcdBB2IRJQnM= Received: by 10.150.47.35 with SMTP id u35mr4470906ybu.88.1313356379351; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:12:59 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.0.1.2] (99-197-145-127.cust.wildblue.net [99.197.145.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s62sm4158203yhn.19.2011.08.14.14.12.49 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 14 Aug 2011 14:12:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: 20B RV-8 altitude test results References: From: Tracy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-31-41723966 X-Mailer: iPad Mail (8F191) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <8A41FC0C-A32A-4C03-9C2B-A25023D46CE2@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:12:38 -0400 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (iPad Mail 8F191) --Apple-Mail-31-41723966 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Got the coils changed out from RX-8s to a mixture of LS2 and LS1 coils and i= nstalled in an improved air box. Coils much cooler now. Ran with auto pilot on to hold altitude steady during tests so I think they a= re pretty accurate. I was mainly interested in fuel economy and speed at va= rious fuel flows. All these results were at 14,000 feet. I'll do some at 1= 8,000 where the results should look even better next time. I forgot to dres= s warmer because the temp on ground was 94 F. OAT during test was 39F. Sp= eeds are TAS. =20 6.0 GPH 169 mph. 28.1 mpg 7.0 GPH. 180 mph. 25.7 mpg 8.0. GPH. 200 mph. 25 mpg 10.0 GPH. 224 mph. 22.4 mpg The manifold pressures sounded a bit unrealistic during test but 2 different= instruments agreed so I think they are right. The only one I wrote down w= as at 7 GPH where it was at 13.9" Hg and rpm was 5174. The sweet spot seem= s to be very close to 8.0 GPH. I think that is where the rpm gets into the= area where the fuel charge is stratified by the centrifugal force at around= 5400 rpm and the mixture can be aggressively leaned. The goal is to get 30 mpg at 200 MPH at 18000 ft. If I can get there I can f= ly non stop from FL to CO with only a small aux fuel tank. Tracy Sent from my iPad On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Charlie England wrote= : >=20 >> Who's flying one (P-ported *Renesis*), & does it meet *both* criteria? > Clarification: If I read correctly, the question was about complex intake v= s adding a supercharger & using it to 'normalize' only back to the output of= a properly done intake. My point is that a manifold like Tracy's is very si= mple to build (much simpler than anything for an aftermarket supercharger), a= nd the power (and efficiency) is there with much less weight & much higher r= eliability. Higher *output* & high altitude benefits are still there, but th= at wasn't the question. >=20 > Obviously, after the P-port is done the intake is simpler (by 2 tubes), bu= t not that many homebuilders have the resources to do the P-port mod, which m= akes the manifold look like child's play. >=20 > Charlie >>=20 >> On 08/14/2011 10:02 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: >>>=20 >>> Charlie, =20 >>>=20 >>> Maybe you meant "...best power of all side ported rotaries". I'm pretty= sure that a p-ported 13B would easily produce more power than a side port m= otor, assuming they do a good job on the intake and exhaust. The nice thing= about a p-port motor is the intake is simpler and easier to build than a si= de port intake. =20 >>>=20 >>> Mark S. >>>=20 >>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Charlie England wrote: >>> On the subject of Renesis intake complexity, take a look at Tracy's inta= ke (pic from his web site). >>>> >>>=20 >>>> http://www.rotaryaviation.com/renesis_engine.htm >>> Can't get much simpler, & as far as I know, he has the best power number= s and the best efficiency numbers of anyone flying. His intake tubes are now= longer than in this shot, but as you can see from the pic, adjusting tube l= ength (retuning) is pretty straightforward.=20 >>>=20 >>> Charlie >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 08/14/2011 06:36 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> Sam, As you find in this "hobby" there are always trade offs. First, t= echnically there is no reason you could not do what you propose - however, y= ou will add weight and complexity. A poor intake affects both N/A and force= d induction - its just with forced induction you are paying in a different w= ay to overcome any defficiencies in your intake.=20 >>>> =20 >>>> If going that route, I personally would prefer the centrifugal type be= lt/gear driven blower over the roots type which has historically had the poo= rest efficiency. On the other hand, if you are not going to "boost" above a= mbient pressure - then I think I would concentrate on getting a good N/A int= ake. >>>> =20 >>>> Good luck on your project whichever decision/approach you take. Super a= nd Turbo chargers have both been used successfully. >>>> =20 >>>> just my $0.02\ >>>> =20 >>>> Ed >>>>=20 >>>> From: Samuel Treffinger >>>> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:01 AM >>>> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >>>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Renesis Question >>>>=20 >>>> I think my brain has had a meltdown: I am thinking about "supernormaliz= ing" the Renesis engine. Is this even possible. The idea is to use a by-pass= able positive displacement type blower (roots type...probably an eaton m90) f= ed to an intercooler that then sends air to the engine. If my thinking is co= rrect, and it probably isn't, this would eliminate the complex N/A intake, w= hile not over-boosting the Renesis engine. Also, the supercharger being a po= sitive displacement blower would in theory produce more boost than is needed= by the engine at all rpm levels, eliminating the "peeky" torque of boosted e= ngines. The excess (above standard intake) pressure would be controlled via a= n automatic or manual waste-gate. Please shoot my idea down if it is insane,= but i would like some constructive criticism if it is available. >>>>=20 >>>> Sam >>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-31-41723966 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Got the coils changed out from RX-8s to= a mixture of LS2 and LS1 coils and installed in an improved air box.  = Coils much cooler now.

Ran with auto pilot on to h= old altitude steady during tests so I think they are pretty accurate.  = I was mainly interested in fuel economy and speed at various fuel flows. &nb= sp; All these results were at 14,000 feet.  I'll do some at 18,000 wher= e the results should look even better next time.  I forgot to dress war= mer because the temp on ground was 94 F.   OAT during test was 39F. &nb= sp;Speeds are TAS.  

6.0 GPH   169 mph. &= nbsp;28.1 mpg
7.0 GPH.   180 mph.  25.7 mpg
8.= 0. GPH.   200 mph. 25 mpg
10.0 GPH.  224 mph. 22.4 mpg

The manifold pressures sounded a bit unrealistic dur= ing test but 2 different instruments agreed so I think they are right.  = ; The only one I wrote down was at 7 GPH where it was at 13.9" Hg and rpm wa= s 5174.   The sweet spot seems to be very close to 8.0 GPH.   I th= ink that is where the rpm gets into the area where the fuel charge is strati= fied by the centrifugal force at around 5400 rpm and the mixture can be aggr= essively leaned.

The goal is to get 30 mpg at 200 M= PH at 18000 ft.  If I can get there I can fly non stop from FL to CO wi= th only a small aux fuel tank.

Tracy
Sent from my iP= ad

On Aug 14, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<= br>

=20 Who's flying one (P-ported *Renesis*), & does it meet *both* criteria?
Clarification: If I read correctly, the question was about complex intake vs adding a supercharger & using it to 'normalize' only back to the output of a properly done intake. My point is that a manifold like Tracy's is very simple to build (much simpler than anything for an aftermarket supercharger), and the power (and efficiency) is there with much less weight & much higher reliability. Higher *output* & high altitude benefits are still there, but that wasn't the question.

Obviously, after the P-port is done the intake is simpler (by 2 tubes), but not that many homebuilders have the resources to do the P-port mod, which makes the manifold look like child's play.

Charlie

On 08/14/2011 10:02 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:
Charlie,=  

Maybe you meant "...best power of all side ported rotaries".  I'm pretty sure that a p-ported 13B would easily produce more power than a side port motor, assuming they do a good job on the intake and exhaust.  The nice thing about a p-port motor is the intake is simpler and easier to build than a side port intake.  

Mark S.

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On the subject of Renesis intake complexity, take a look at Tracy's intake (pic from his web site).
<mime-attachment.jpg>
http://www.rotaryaviat= ion.com/renesis_engine.htm
Can't get much simpler, & as far as I know, he has the best power numbers and the best efficiency numbers of anyone flying. His intake tubes are now longer than in this shot, but as you can see from the pic, adjusting tube length (retuning) is pretty straightforward.

Charlie




On 08/14/2011 06:36 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:
Sam, As you find in this "hobby" there  are always trade offs.  First= , technically there is no reason you could not do what you propose - however, you will add weight and complexity.  A poor intake affects both N/A and forced induction - its just with forced induction you are paying in a different way to overcome any defficiencies in your intake. 
 
 If going that route, I personally would prefer the centrifugal type belt/gear driven blower over the roots type which has historically had the poorest efficiency.  On the other hand, if you are not going to "boost" above ambient pressure - then I think I would concentrate on getting a good N/A intake.
=
 
Good luck on your project whichever decision/approach you take.  Super and Turbo chargers have both been used successfully.
 
just my $0.02\
 
Ed

Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2011 1:01 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Renesis Question

I think my brain has had a meltdown: I am thinking about "supernormalizing" the Renesis engine. Is this even possible. The idea is to use a by-passable positive displacement type blower (roots type...probably an eaton m90) fed to an intercooler that then sends air to the engine. If my thinking is correct, and it probably isn't, this would eliminate the complex N/A intake, while not over-boosting the Renesis engine. Also, the supercharger being a positive displacement blower would in theory produce more boost than is needed by the engine at all rpm levels, eliminating the "peeky" torque of boosted engines. The excess (above standard intake) pressure would be controlled via an automatic or manual waste-gate. Please shoot my idea down if it is insane, but i would like some constructive criticism if it is available.

Sam




=20
= --Apple-Mail-31-41723966--