X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 974514 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Feb 2006 08:42:29 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-025-165.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.25.165]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id k18Dfd7R014888 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:41:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002301c62cb5$6715c320$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Six port bolt-on manfold progress (was: RX-8) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:41:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0020_01C62C8B.7DFF56C0" 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 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C62C8B.7DFF56C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, Bill - appears you have given this project a lot of thought (no = surprise there). =20 To produce maximum thrust at full power your tip speed should fall = between .88 and .92 mach. To move between .88 and .92 mach usually takes = a change of about 110 to 120 RPM. This of course varies depending on = your particular propeller and the temperature. The calculator on the = website gives the tip speed as 0.889 Mach, so looks like you are right = on the money with the prop. Looking forward to progress reports Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "BillDube@killacycle.com" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:32 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Six port bolt-on manfold progress (was: RX-8) > In the car, all the intake valves are open at something like 6500 RPM=20 > (maybe even lower.) My manifold emulates the stock manifold in this=20 > condition. Should work OK for the expected RPM operating range. >=20 > With a 2:85 PSRU, the max prop RPM will be 3157. As I = understand=20 > it, this should not be a problem for a 72 inch prop. You just have to = > pitch it correctly to absorb 243 HP at that RPM (at altitude.) >=20 > I'm planning to rig up a dyno using a big disk brake (and a = lot of=20 > water) to find out how many HP the engine is actually making. >=20 > Bill Dube' >=20 >=20 >=20 > At 07:18 PM 2/7/2006, you wrote: >>Boy, Bill, what an intake manifold project. If it should not turn out = to=20 >>work as you desire - it will sure make a nice piece of artwork! Sorry, = >>couldn't resist it - I know nice artwork is not what you are looking = for.=20 >>Looks like a lot of work has gone into it already. Will eagerly await = its=20 >>production and test results. >> >>I am still curious as to how you plan to get the engine close to 9000 = with=20 >>the prop load. One of the problems that typically happens is that a=20 >>manifold may be designed and may give great performance at say 9000 = rpm in=20 >>a car engine. Because they can shift gears and regulate the engine = load,=20 >>which of course we can not do ..... unless....Aha! you plan on using = a=20 >>constant speed/variable pitch prop - don't you. >> >>At least my experience with a fix pitch prop is that due to the prop = load=20 >>the engine simply won't get up into the rpm promise land that the = intake=20 >>design would seem to promise. My very first intake manifold was being = >>used by the rotary racers at the time and producing 280+ HP at untold = rpms=20 >>- I tried it and the engine could simply not get past a 5500-6000 rpm=20 >>range. I replaced it with an intake of longer, much smaller diameter=20 >>intakes and have now hit as high as 6800 rpm. >> >>In any case, hopefully your results will everything you aim for. In = any=20 >>case, it should provide us with an expert on carbon fiber intakes - = that=20 >>in itself would be great 3lbs vs my 11lb intake would be great. >> >>Ed A >> >>Ed Anderson >>Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered >>Matthews, NC >>eanderson@carolina.rr.com >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Dube" = >>To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:49 PM >>Subject: [FlyRotary] Six port bolt-on manfold progress (was: RX-8) >> >> >>>The six port will supposedly make 248 HP 100% stock. This is at about >>>9000 RPM, however. The four port does not make as much HP stock. >>> >>>I am working on a carbon fiber composite manifold for the 6 port that >>>(hopefully) will emulate the stock manifold with all the valves open. >>>CNC machining of the molds will commence the beginning of March. We = CNC >>>machined a foam test mold a few months ago. We did a test layup of = the >>>carbon fiber about a month ago. >>> >>>Attached is a picture of the CAD rendition of the six-port manifold. = As >>>you can see, it will use the stock throttle body, stock injectors, = stock >>>injector rails, and will be 100% bolt-on. Should weigh about 3 = pounds. >>>(Stock manifold weighs 22 pounds.) High temperature epoxy will = easily >>>withstand 300 F. Back-of-the envelope calculation says the burst = presure >>>on the carbon fiber tubes should be well over 10,000 psi. >>> >>> The goal is to make a lightweight manifold that will hug the top = of >>>the engine and will simply bolt on. >>> >>> It is going slower than I would like, but I am working on it in = my >>>spare time and trying to keep the costs down. >>> >>> Bill Dube' >>> >>> >>>randy echtinaw wrote: >>> >>>>Gentlemen, >>>> I have the opportunity to purchase a 4 port or a 6 port RX-8 >>>>engine. I thought I wanted a 4 port because I thought it would be >>>>easier to muffel. I just heard a "rumor" that the 4 port is junk and >>>>go with the 6 port. I need 220-230 hp using the 2.85 PSRU, no turbo. >>>>I would consider P-porting if absolutely necessary to get the HP. >>>>Obviously, I know very little about engines and want to start with >>>>the best I can get so, considering my needs which one do I want? >>>>Thank you, >>>>Randy >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>>Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >>> >> >> >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------- >> >> >>>-- >>>Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >> >> >> >>-- >>Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >=20 >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ > ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C62C8B.7DFF56C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, Bill - appears you have given this project a = lot of=20 thought (no surprise there). 
 
To produce maximum thrust at full power your tip = speed=20 should fall between .88 and .92 mach. To move between .88 and .92 mach = usually=20 takes a change of about 110 to 120 RPM. This of course varies depending = on your=20 particular propeller and the temperature.  The calculator on the = website=20 gives the tip speed as 0.889 Mach, so looks like you are right on the = money with=20 the prop.
 
Looking forward to progress reports
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "BillDube@killacycle.com" = <billdube@killacycle.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 1:32 = AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Six port bolt-on = manfold progress=20 (was: RX-8)

> In the = car, all the=20 intake valves are open at something like 6500 RPM
> (maybe even = lower.)=20 My manifold emulates the stock manifold in this
> condition. = Should work=20 OK for the expected RPM operating range.
>=20
>         With a 2:85 = PSRU, the=20 max prop RPM will be 3157. As I understand
> it, this should not = be a=20 problem for a 72 inch prop.  You just have to
> pitch it = correctly=20 to absorb 243 HP at that RPM (at altitude.)
>=20
>         I'm planning to = rig up=20 a dyno using a big disk brake (and a lot of
> water) to find out=20 how  many HP the engine is actually making.
>
> Bill=20 Dube'
>
>
>
> At 07:18 PM 2/7/2006, you=20 wrote:
>>Boy, Bill, what an intake manifold project.  If = it should=20 not turn out to
>>work as you desire - it will sure make a = nice piece=20 of artwork! Sorry,
>>couldn't resist it - I know nice artwork = is not=20 what you are looking for.
>>Looks like a lot of work has gone = into it=20 already.  Will eagerly await its
>>production and test=20 results.
>>
>>I am still curious as to how you plan to = get the=20 engine close to 9000 with
>>the prop load.  One of the = problems=20 that typically happens is that a
>>manifold may be designed = and may=20 give great performance at say 9000 rpm in
>>a car = engine. =20 Because they can shift gears and regulate the engine load, =
>>which of=20 course we can not do ..... unless....Aha! you plan on using  a=20
>>constant speed/variable pitch prop - don't=20 you.
>>
>>At least my experience with a fix pitch prop = is that=20 due to the prop load
>>the engine simply won't get up into the = rpm=20 promise land that the intake
>>design would seem to = promise.  My=20 very first intake manifold was being
>>used by the rotary = racers at=20 the time and producing 280+ HP at untold rpms
>>- I tried it = and the=20 engine could simply not get past a 5500-6000 rpm =
>>range.  I=20 replaced it with an intake of longer, much smaller diameter =
>>intakes=20 and have now hit as high as 6800 rpm.
>>
>>In any = case,=20 hopefully your results will everything you aim for.  In any=20
>>case, it should provide us with an expert on carbon fiber = intakes -=20 that
>>in itself would be great 3lbs vs my 11lb intake would = be=20 great.
>>
>>Ed A
>>
>>Ed=20 Anderson
>>Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>>Matthews,=20 NC
>>eanderson@carolina.rr.com
>>----- Original = Message -----=20 From: "Bill Dube" <william.p.dube@noaa.gov>
>>To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>>Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:49=20 PM
>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Six port bolt-on manfold progress = (was:=20 RX-8)
>>
>>
>>>The six port will = supposedly make=20 248 HP 100% stock. This is at about
>>>9000 RPM, however. = The four=20 port does not make as much HP stock.
>>>
>>>I am = working=20 on a carbon fiber composite manifold for the 6 port=20 that
>>>(hopefully) will emulate the stock manifold with all = the=20 valves open.
>>>CNC machining of the molds will commence the = beginning of March. We CNC
>>>machined a foam test mold a = few months=20 ago. We did a test layup of the
>>>carbon fiber about a = month=20 ago.
>>>
>>>Attached is a picture of the CAD = rendition=20 of the six-port manifold. As
>>>you can see, it will use the = stock=20 throttle body, stock injectors, stock
>>>injector rails, and = will be=20 100% bolt-on. Should weigh about 3 pounds.
>>>(Stock = manifold weighs=20 22 pounds.)  High temperature epoxy will = easily
>>>withstand=20 300 F. Back-of-the envelope calculation says the burst = presure
>>>on=20 the carbon fiber tubes should be well over 10,000=20 psi.
>>>
>>>     The goal is = to make=20 a lightweight manifold that will hug the top of
>>>the = engine and=20 will simply bolt = on.
>>>
>>>     It=20 is going slower than I would like, but I am working on it in=20 my
>>>spare time and trying to keep the costs=20 down.
>>>
>>>     Bill=20 Dube'
>>>
>>>
>>>randy echtinaw=20 wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gentlemen,
>>>>&= nbsp;  =20 I have the opportunity to purchase a 4 port or a 6 port=20 RX-8
>>>>engine. I thought I wanted a 4 port because I = thought it=20 would be
>>>>easier to muffel. I just heard a "rumor" = that the 4=20 port is junk and
>>>>go with the 6 port. I need 220-230 = hp using=20 the 2.85 PSRU, no turbo.
>>>>I would consider P-porting = if=20 absolutely necessary to get the HP.
>>>>Obviously, I know = very=20 little about engines and want to start with
>>>>the best = I can=20 get so, considering my needs which one do I = want?
>>>>Thank=20 you,
>>>>Randy
>>>>
>>>>-->>>>Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>>Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/>>>
>>
>>
>>------------= --------------------------------------------------------------------
&= gt;>
>>
>>>--
>>>Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ho= mepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive=20 and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/> ------=_NextPart_000_0020_01C62C8B.7DFF56C0--