Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #3305
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE the short Answer
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 16:52:05 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Al Gietzen
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE the short Answer

 

In any case, the EDDIE study indicated that for my system that combining the primary and secondary runners after they exit the block not only would probably not hurt things, it might help.  Well, it certainly simplified the tube alignment problem and we will see about its affect (if any) on performance.

 

This puzzles me, and maybe I missed some prior part of this discussion; but how do avoid getting a wave reflection; degradation or whatever at the junction of two into one?

 

Al

 

Good question. Al.

 

    First, I am not an induction airflow expert.  I have read a bit about it and you are correct, you can get harmful reflections at intersections.  From what I understand (which may be incorrect), the amount of reflected energy you get depends on several things (can't remember them all).  One of those factors is the type  of convergence ("T" section or "Y" type for example), a second factor is the amount of  change in cross section between the separate tubes and the single tube.  Perhaps how fast they converge/diverge has an effect -but not certain about that one.  That's all I think I remember about intersections at the moment.

 

The main reason (as far as I can see) for Mazda having a primary and secondary runner system is they have different timing for those ports.  That would really screw up (in my opinion)  the airflow if they had used just one tube. Each port with its different timing would be sending pulses through the system and sucking air out of sync and its doubtful (in my mind) that would have been beneficial.  

 

 It also permitted them to keep the airflow velocity high in the primary by keeping the runner and port size smaller promoting good chamber packing at lower rpms.  Then when they needed heavy breathing for the higher RPMS they had the secondary with its larger port and runners and different port timing.

 

Now, for those reasons (and perhaps others), I can see why separating the runners for automobile application had considerable merit.  My statement was to suggest that perhaps those factors are not as significant for aircraft application and therefore the simplicity of combining the runners might have benefit for the aircraft use that outweighed an adverse things as you mentioned.

 

I could be wrong of course, and my next intake manifold (in progress as we chat) should provide some data on whether my combining intake runners helped or hurt.

 

 

That's my take on it.

 

Ed

 

 

 

 

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster