Return-Path: Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2585276 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:33:23 -0400 Received: from user-2injqp4.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.121.235.36] helo=Carol) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1A0CxK-0007c7-00 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 18 Sep 2003 21:33:19 -0700 Message-ID: <005301c37e67$1b988ee0$0000a398@Carol> From: "sqpilot@earthlink" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Whats good for Racing is necessarily good for aircraft was Re: Intake questions Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 23:32:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0050_01C37E3D.31FC9ED0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C37E3D.31FC9ED0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 1:22 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Whats good for Racing is necessarily good for = aircraft was Re: Intake questions From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 11:01 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Intake questions Greetings, I'm probably about to prove that I haven't paid any attention to = any of the intake construction threads, but here goes... I know there's = special length that will tune the intake to make more power. Ed knows = what this is, but if he tells us, he has to kill us (a slow painful = death, involving 60 slides) :-) =20 power band, so I started wondering if I could "tune" it with = individual pipes on the inlet side of the TB. =20 Thanks, Rusty (Scotty, I need more power!)=20 Hi, Rusty.....I purchased the short intake manifold from Dave = Atkins. He claims he has more than adequate power with his, and that = idle is also good. Look at all the race cars and racing motorcycles = that have the carbs or throttle bodies right next to the engine. They = seem to generate a lot of power that way. For what it's worth. Paul Conner Paul is correct. There are any number of intake configurations = that will produce adequate power for the RV-6. I am told that Dave = Atkin's intake permits him to generate approx 160HP which is certainly = adequate for an RV and could even provide thrilling performance in a low = weight RV I'll have to say I've flow an RV with adequate (whatever that = means) performance while producing as little as 120HP. The cruise was = around 180 TAS which was adequate because even today I generally elected = to cruise at 170 TAS to conserve fuel, but take off and climb with 120 = HP in my somewhat heavy bird were agony! Paul, not disputing what you say at all, but you have to consider = the different application. you are making the same assumption that I = made with my first intake. Yes, I listened to the Racing guys and I'm = certain that their advice was just peachy for racing - if you are = turning over 7000-8000 rpm. Than rpm range means short runners and = large diameter inlets are the cats meaow. =20 But, I can tell you from personal experience that if you think you = are going to put a curise prop on your RV-6 with that set up and think = you are going to turn 7000-8000 rpm with a 2.17:1 PSRU you are going to = be sadly disappointed. Tracy Crook turns as high an RPM with that set up = as anyone I know (has hit 214 mph TAS) and maxs out at around 6400 rpm. = His tubes are 1.25 and 1.5" in diameter as best I recall and wrap over = the top of his engine so that is air intake sits on the top middle of = his cowl. So the tubes are not short. =20 The auto and motor cycle guys have one advantage - they have gear = boxes which permit them to wind the engine up into those higher rpm = ranges with a lighter load (lower gear) before shifting to the next = ratio (where you do indeed generate more power), but we can't wind our = engine and then shift gears (at least not yet). Bill Eslick initially use a very short induction system which = provided very disappointing performance results. His report (earlier on = the list this week) indicates that once he went with a different (read - = longer intake, copied after Tracy's as was mine) his performance = improved so that he now keeps up with the 160 HP Lycoming powered RV-6s. = You have to select the induction system parameters that is = realistic for your application! What sucks for us - works for the race = guys, what works for us -would suck for the race guys. Its like apples = and oranges (so to speak) {:>) Now, I will be the first to say, if you want to experiment or if = you find for cost, configuration or convience reasons you want to try = some particular intake configuration, please do so. I've been wrong = before and I am certain will be in the future - but, do it with your = eyes open and understanding of what performance might reasonably be = expected. Best Regards Ed Anderon Hi, Ed.....thanks for the post and education. I guess I was kinda = thinking that if Dave Atkins's RV performs that well with his short = intake manifold, my aerodynamically cleaner canard should perform = equally to, or hopefully better? The primary reason I liked his intake = was because it is truly "bolt on" and go. I tried to buy the wrap-over = manifold from Powersport, but their reply was...."sorry, we can't help = you". I'm sure that experimenters such as yourself, who know and = understand intake systems better than I, can tweak more power out of = these engines. The latest effort I am going to attempt is a wrap-over = system similar to Paul Lamar's, but with only two intake runners. The = intake manifold I ordered is cast so that the four intakes go into two = almost immediately, and from there I will make my aluminum tubing wrap = over the top of the engine (as close as possible for cowling clearance) = and then terminate with my TWM throttlebody with the built-in injectors. = )(Also purchased from Dave Atkins, because it was another "bolt on"). = Did I mention that I like bolt-ons? I truly appreciate the time and = effort you invest into improving these rotary installations for = aircraft. Thanks again. Paul Conner ------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C37E3D.31FC9ED0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Thursday, September 18, = 2003 1:22=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Whats good = for=20 Racing is necessarily good for aircraft was Re: Intake questions

 
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Wednesday, September = 17, 2003=20 11:01 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Intake = questions

Greetings,
 
I'm = probably about to=20 prove that I haven't paid any attention to any of the intake = construction=20 threads, but here goes...  I know there's special length that = will=20 tune the intake to make more power.  Ed knows what this is, = but if he=20 tells us, he has to kill us (a slow painful death, = involving 60=20 slides)  :-) 
 power band, so I started wondering if I = could=20 "tune" it with individual pipes on the inlet side of the=20 TB.  
 
Thanks,
Rusty = (Scotty, I need=20 more power!) 
 
Hi, = Rusty.....I=20 purchased the short intake manifold from Dave Atkins. He claims he = has=20 more than adequate power with his, and that idle is also = good.  Look=20 at all the race cars and racing motorcycles that have the carbs or = throttle bodies right next to the engine.  They seem to = generate a=20 lot of power that way. For what it's worth.
 
 Paul=20 Conner
 
 
 
Paul is = correct.=20 There are any number of intake configurations that will produce = adequate=20 power for the RV-6. I am told that Dave Atkin's intake = permits him to=20 generate approx 160HP which is certainly adequate for an RV and = could even=20 provide thrilling performance in a low weight = RV
 
I'll have = to=20 say I've flow an RV with adequate (whatever that means)=20 performance while producing as little as 120HP.  The = cruise=20 was around 180 TAS which was adequate because even today I = generally=20 elected to cruise at 170 TAS to conserve fuel, but take off and = climb with=20 120 HP in my somewhat heavy bird were agony!
 
 Paul, not=20 disputing what you say at all, but you have to consider the = different=20 application.  you are making the same assumption that =  I=20 made with my first intake.  Yes, I listened to the Racing = guys and=20 I'm certain that their advice was just peachy for racing - if you = are=20 turning over 7000-8000 rpm.  Than rpm range means short = runners and=20 large diameter inlets are the cats meaow.  =
 
But, I = can tell you=20 from personal experience that if you think you are going to put a = curise=20 prop on your RV-6 with that set up and think you are going to turn = 7000-8000 rpm with a 2.17:1 PSRU you are going to be sadly=20 disappointed. Tracy Crook turns as high an RPM with that set = up as=20 anyone I know (has hit 214 mph TAS) and maxs out at around 6400 = rpm. =20 His tubes are 1.25 and 1.5" in diameter as best I recall and wrap = over the=20 top of his engine so that is air intake sits on the top middle of = his=20 cowl.  So the tubes are not = short.  
 
 The = auto and=20 motor cycle guys have one advantage - they have gear boxes which = permit=20 them to wind the engine up into those higher rpm ranges with a = lighter=20 load (lower gear) before shifting to the next ratio (where you do = indeed=20 generate more power), but we can't wind our engine and then shift = gears=20 (at least not yet).
 
Bill = Eslick initially=20 use a very short induction system which provided very = disappointing=20 performance results.  His report (earlier on the list = this=20 week) indicates that once he went with a different (read - = longer=20 intake, copied after Tracy's as was mine) his performance improved = so that=20 he now keeps up with the 160 HP Lycoming powered RV-6s.=20
 
You have = to select=20 the induction system parameters that is realistic for your=20 application!  What sucks for us - works for the race guys, = what works=20 for us -would suck for the race guys.  Its like apples and = oranges=20 (so to speak) {:>)
 
Now, I = will be the=20 first to say, if you want to experiment or if you find for cost,=20 configuration or convience reasons you want to try some particular = intake=20 configuration, please do so.  I've been wrong before and I am = certain=20 will be in the future - but, do it with your eyes open and = understanding=20 of what performance might reasonably be = expected.
 
Best=20 Regards
 
Ed=20 Anderon
 
 
 
Hi, = Ed.....thanks for=20 the post and education. I guess I was kinda thinking that if Dave = Atkins's=20 RV performs that well with his short intake manifold, my = aerodynamically=20 cleaner canard should perform equally to, or hopefully = better?  The=20 primary reason I liked his intake was because it is truly "bolt = on" and=20 go.  I tried to buy the wrap-over manifold from Powersport, = but their=20 reply was...."sorry, we can't help you".  I'm sure that = experimenters=20 such as yourself, who know and understand intake systems better = than I,=20 can tweak more power out of these engines.  The latest effort = I am=20 going to attempt is a wrap-over system similar to Paul Lamar's, = but with=20 only two intake runners. The intake manifold I ordered is cast so = that the=20 four intakes go into two almost immediately, and from there I will = make my=20 aluminum tubing wrap over the top of the engine (as close as = possible for=20 cowling clearance) and then terminate with my TWM throttlebody = with the=20 built-in injectors. )(Also purchased from Dave Atkins, because it = was=20 another "bolt on").   Did I mention that I like = bolt-ons? =20 I truly appreciate the time and effort you invest into improving = these=20 rotary installations for aircraft.  Thanks again.  Paul=20 Conner
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0050_01C37E3D.31FC9ED0--