Return-Path: Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.63.102] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 723591 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:36:11 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.63.102; envelope-from=FLY@ZOOKSAVIATION.COM Received: from mzucco (dialup-4.235.156.187.Dial1.Orlando1.Level3.net [4.235.156.187]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with SMTP id j1AFZ4oC095400 for ; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:35:15 -0500 Message-ID: <003f01c50f86$1b02f4a0$cc0ac140@mzucco> Reply-To: "Zook's Aviation Services Inc." From: "Zook's Aviation Services Inc." To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: : Same HP = Same Air Mass <> same air Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:32:54 -0500 Organization: Zook's Aviation Services Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C50F5B.E109BEC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C50F5B.E109BEC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I recently went on distribution since I am interested in Rotaries in = Race Cars and Aircraft. Background: I have an ArrowII and 2 2nd Gen Race Cars with 13 b Rotaries. (Have a = spare engine w/ bad aft Rotor/Housing) Anyway. I tried but not sure if it is legal so I removed it, I instaled = one of those Gimmic Turbo Flow devices you install in the intake post = the Mass Airflow Sensor. I used it one race and swore I was getting more = power. I would guess as much as 15 HP at the 6-7K Rpm Rage. I know some = are using carbs and do not have the Mass Airflow/Plenum to install it but the principle may be the same. Been tempted to try it = out in the IO-360 to see if it makes a difference. Be carefull if you do this since the vibs and pulses of the engine may = fatigue the fins and get injested in the engine. =20 Disclaimer: Do at your own risk. We are not liable for anyone trying this out. = Recomend a bench test first. If anyone tries this out plese let us know th results. Thanks. Mike Zucco www.zooksaviation.com fly@zooksaviation.com - Air Taxi/Charter Booking - Aircraft Sales - Consulting/Contract Engineering 1-800-879-7985 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 10:12 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: : Same HP =3D Same Air Mass <> same air = Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Tom,=20 I don't really think anyone can accurately make a generalization like = that. Certainly a PP 13B (such as power sports) which reportedly = produces 215 HP produces more power than a carb 360 Lycoming. A street = ported well tuned 13B will certainly produce 180HP. But, given any two = specific engines and depending on how well their induction/exhaust, etc. = are set up, you could have one or the other producing the greater HP. But, if someone has specific data that shows the 360 produces more = power, then I would certainly like to know about it. Ed A=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:14 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: : Same HP =3D Same Air Mass <> same air = Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece It's my understanding that NA non-renesis rotary installations = produce less power than 360s, Perry Mick might have a word on this.=20 Eric Ruttan wrote: Warning top poster, who cuts the post size down. A hopothises for your examination. A 360 Lyc does not produce the same power as a rotary. If true, then the Ellison card may not get enough air. If not true, then there is no real reason why the Ellison cannot = feed a rotary. Ed, I understand your math, but even if the local inlet velocity = is much higher, we dont care. the velocities adverage out to the same, as = the volume of air =3D velocity * carb area. If the velocities are higher, the rotary consumes more air, and = makes more power. Eric ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ed Anderson"=20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft"=20 Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:31 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] : Same HP =3D Same Air Mass <> same air = Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Good question, Tom. That interpretation did occur to me. I think the answer depends on = your assumptions, IF using commonly accepted formulas for calculating = air flow vs rpm and displacement (and considering both are positive = displacement pumps) - then the 360 CID lycoming turning 2800 rpm and the rotors = in the rotary turning 2100 rpm (6300 rpm E shaft) ingest the same total = quantity of air in one minute - approx 291 CFM. In comparing the two engines, = its accepted that you compare them over the standard 720deg 4 stroke = cycle - that means that 4 of the rotary faces have gone through their = cycle in the same 720 deg of rotation. But, assuming the formulas are correct, then they both end up with = the same amount of air in the engine to create the same HP. I think my math = is correct on the smaller/unit displacement and longer period of = rotation for the rotary for the same intake of air. However, in both cases the = air flow is pulsating and pulsating differently. So if the total = displacement for the rotary over that 720 deg is less than the Lycoming and the = time it takes to complete that rotation is slower AND you still ingest the same = amount of total Air then the only way I can see that happening is the = velocity of the air in the rotary's intake has to be considerably higher than in = the Lycoming. The only other alternative answer I see if that the commonly = accepted formula for comparing the rotary to the reciprocating 4 stroke is = incorrect (I got beat about the head mercilessly by a number of respected = rotary experts challenging that formula , so I wont' go there again (at = least not now {:>)). Air Flow =3D Total Displacement * RPM/(2 - accounting for only = every other cylinder sucking on each rev * 1728 (conversion of cubic inches to = cubic feet) =3D TD*RPM/(2*1728) For the 360 CID Lycoming at 2800 rpm, Air Flow =3D = 360*2800/(2*1728) =3D 291.66 CFM Using the commonly accepted notion that a rotary is equivalent to = a 160 CID 4 stroke reciprocating engine because of the 4 faces of 40 CID = that complete there cycle in 720 deg. For the 160 CID Rotary at 6000 rpm, Air Flow =3D 160 * = 6300/(2*1728) =3D 291.66 CFM So if both ingest the 291 CFM and the rotary has less total = displacement (over 720 deg) then disregarding any of my math on rotation period differences you still have to account for why the rotary can = ingest the same amount of air with less displacement. (Now I must admit I have my suspicions about the commonly accepted (racing approved) formula = for the rotary. However, if my suspicions about the rotary formula are = correct, it would make the rotary even more efficient at ingesting air - so I = won't go there {:>)). If my logic and calculations are correct then this implies the Ve = of the rotary is considerably better than the Lycoming and is great than = 100%. I mentioned a few of the reasons why the Ve of the rotary may indeed = be better in the previous message. Now, its possible that the stories about the Ellison not working = well on the rotary is just that - a story OR there could be a plausible = physical reason as I have poorly attempted to present. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:54 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Same HP =3D Same Air Mass <> same air = Velocity [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Ed, >The rotary has 40 CID displacement per face and 2 facesx 2 rotors = =3D 4*40 or 160 CID for one rev. So the rotary has 22% less displacement = per revolution and the longer rotation period.< and >So if the rotary has less displacement of the sucking component = and must take 25% longer for each revolution. Therefore the only way it can = obtain an equal amount of air is for the intake air to have a higher = velocity than the Lycoming does.< Isn't 'displacement' equal to the amount of air needing to be = ingested? So 22% less displacement equates to 22% less air and the rotarys = longer rotation period gives it more time for air to push in? And then = the intake air velocity should be lower? >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C50F5B.E109BEC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I recently went on distribution since I = am=20 interested in Rotaries in Race Cars and Aircraft.
 
Background:
I have an ArrowII and 2 2nd Gen Race = Cars with 13 b=20 Rotaries. (Have a spare engine w/ bad aft Rotor/Housing)
 
Anyway. I tried but not sure if it is = legal so I=20 removed it, I instaled one of those Gimmic Turbo Flow devices you = install in the=20 intake post the Mass Airflow Sensor. I used it one race and swore I was = getting=20 more power. I would guess as much as 15 HP at the 6-7K Rpm Rage. I=20 know some are using carbs and do not have the Mass=20 Airflow/Plenum
to install it but the principle may be = the same.=20 Been tempted to try it out in the IO-360 to see if it makes a=20 difference.
 
Be carefull if you do this since the = vibs and=20 pulses of the engine may fatigue the fins and get injested in the=20 engine.  
 
Disclaimer:
 
Do at your own risk. We are not liable = for anyone=20 trying this out. Recomend a bench test first.
 
If anyone tries this out plese let us = know th=20 results.
 
Thanks.
 
Mike Zucco
 
www.zooksaviation.com
fly@zooksaviation.com
 
- Air Taxi/Charter Booking
- = Aircraft Sales
-=20 Consulting/Contract Engineering
 
1-800-879-7985
 
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Thursday, February 10, = 2005 10:12=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: : Same = HP =3D Same=20 Air Mass <> same air Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the = missing=20 piece

Tom,
 
I don't really think anyone can = accurately=20 make a generalization like that.  Certainly a PP 13B (such = as power=20 sports) which reportedly  produces 215 HP produces more power = than a carb=20 360 Lycoming.  A street ported well tuned 13B will certainly = produce=20 180HP.  But, given any two specific engines and depending on how = well=20 their induction/exhaust, etc. are set up, you could have one or the = other=20 producing the greater HP.
 
But, if someone has specific data = that shows the=20 360 produces more power, then I would certainly like to know about=20 it.
 
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Thursday, February 10, = 2005 9:14=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: : = Same HP =3D=20 Same Air Mass <> same air Velocity II [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, = the=20 missing piece

It's my understanding that NA non-renesis rotary installations=20 produce less power than 360s, Perry Mick might have a word on = this.=20


Eric Ruttan <ericruttan@chartermi.net>= =20 wrote:
Warning=20 top poster, who cuts the post size down.

A hopothises for = your=20 examination.

A 360 Lyc does not produce the same power as a = rotary.

If true, then the Ellison card may not get enough=20 air.

If not true, then there is no real reason why the = Ellison=20 cannot feed a
rotary.

Ed, I understand your math, but = even if=20 the local inlet velocity is much
higher, we dont care. the = velocities=20 adverage out to the same, as the
volume of air =3D velocity * = carb=20 area.

If the velocities are higher, the rotary consumes = more air,=20 and makes more
power.

Eric

----- Original Message = -----=20
From: "Ed Anderson"
To: "Rotary = motors=20 in aircraft"
Sent: Thursday, = February 10,=20 2005 8:31 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] : Same HP =3D Same Air Mass = <>=20 same air Velocity II
[FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing=20 piece


Good question, Tom.

That interpretation = did occur=20 to me. I think the answer depends on your
assumptions, IF using = commonly accepted formulas for calculating air flow vs
rpm and=20 displacement (and considering both are positive = displacement
pumps) -=20 then the 360 CID lycoming turning 2800 rpm and the rotors in = the
rotary=20 turning 2100 rpm (6300 rpm E shaft) ingest the same total quantity = of
air in one minute - approx 291 CFM. In comparing the two = engines,=20 its
accepted that you compare them over the standard 720deg 4 = stroke=20 cycle -
that means that 4 of the rotary faces have gone through = their=20 cycle in the
same 720 deg of rotation.

But, assuming the = formulas are correct, then they both end up with the = same
amount of air=20 in the engine to create the same HP. I think my math is
correct = on the=20 smaller/unit displacement and longer period of rotation for
the = rotary=20 for the same intake of air. However, in both cases the air = flow
is=20 pulsating and pulsating differently. So if the total displacement=20 for
the rotary over that 720 deg is less than the Lycoming and = the time=20 it takes
to complete that rotation is slower AND you still = ingest the=20 same amount of
total Air then the only way I can see that = happening is=20 the velocity of the
air in the rotary's intake has to be = considerably=20 higher than in the
Lycoming.

The only other alternative = answer I=20 see if that the commonly accepted
formula for comparing the = rotary to=20 the reciprocating 4 stroke is incorrect
(I got beat about the = head=20 mercilessly by a number of respected rotary
experts challenging = that=20 formula , so I wont' go there again (at least not
now=20 {:>)).

Air Flow =3D Total Displacement * RPM/(2 - = accounting for=20 only every other
cylinder sucking on each rev * 1728 = (conversion of=20 cubic inches to cubic
feet) =3D TD*RPM/(2*1728)

For the = 360 CID=20 Lycoming at 2800 rpm, Air Flow =3D 360*2800/(2*1728) =3D=20 291.66
CFM

Using the commonly accepted notion that a = rotary is=20 equivalent to a 160 CID
4 stroke reciprocating engine because = of the 4=20 faces of 40 CID that complete
there cycle in 720 = deg.

For the=20 160 CID Rotary at 6000 rpm, Air Flow =3D 160 * 6300/(2*1728) =3D=20 291.66
CFM

So if both ingest the 291 CFM and the rotary = has less=20 total displacement
(over 720 deg) then disregarding any of my = math on=20 rotation period
differences you still have to account for why = the=20 rotary can ingest the same
amount of air with less = displacement. (Now I=20 must admit I have my
suspicions about the commonly accepted = (racing=20 approved) formula for the
rotary. However, if my suspicions = about the=20 rotary formula are correct, it
would make the rotary even more=20 efficient at ingesting air - so I won't go
there = {:>)).

If my=20 logic and calculations are correct then this implies the Ve of=20 the
rotary is considerably better than the Lycoming and is = great than=20 100%. I
mentioned a few of the reasons why the Ve of the rotary = may=20 indeed be better
in the previous message.

Now, its = possible that=20 the stories about the Ellison not working well on the
rotary is = just=20 that - a story OR there could be a plausible physical reason
as = I have=20 poorly attempted to present.


Ed


----- = Original=20 Message -----
From: Tom
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Sent:=20 Wednesday, February 09, 2005 11:54 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Same HP=20 =3D Same Air Mass <> same air Velocity
[FlyRotary] Re: = Ellison, the=20 missing piece


Ed,

>The rotary has 40 CID = displacement=20 per face and 2 facesx 2 rotors =3D 4*40
or 160 CID for one rev. = So the=20 rotary has 22% less displacement per
revolution and the longer = rotation=20 period.<

and

>So if the rotary has less = displacement=20 of the sucking component and must
take 25% longer for each = revolution.=20 Therefore the only way it can obtain
an equal amount of air is = for the=20 intake air to have a higher velocity than
the Lycoming=20 does.<

Isn't 'displacement' equal to the amount of air = needing=20 to be ingested?
So 22% less displacement equates to 22% less = air and=20 the rotarys longer
rotation period gives it more time for air = to push=20 in? And then the
intake air velocity should be=20 lower?



>> Homepage:=20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive:=20 = http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib=20 Jab's 'Second Term' ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C50F5B.E109BEC0--