Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #3337
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE the short Answer
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 09:26:56 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message
 Morning Ed.  I admit that I've only been skimming over the EDDIE messages, so this may be a dumb question.  Does this effect raise the pressure in the intake runners in such a way that the EC-2 will see it via the MAP sensor?  If not, it would seem that adjusting the runners in and out of the effect will throw off the mixture.  I'm sure you've thought of this, so it's probably a silly question. 
 
Rusty (ordering a stock RV-3 cowl today)
 
Morning, Rusty.   It is unlikely that the EC-2 would respond to this pressure increase given where it occurs and its short duration.  The big pressure increase effect is fairly localized in the runners.  Remember this is a pulse of energy not a slug of air.  While unobstructed traveling down the tube, very little of this energy is converted to pressure, However, when it reaches the end of the runner, the kinetic energy of the Mach 1 wave is converted to dynamic pressure.  These pulses (Finite-Amplitude Waves) have been measured as creating overpressure ratios of 1.5 - 2.0 that is from 21-30 PSI absolute.  After seeing what the exhaust FAW did to my stainless steel fish tails on my exhaust (fragmented them in a few minutes, just fatiqued the metal to the point that chucks fell out), I am a believer.  Incredible strong, but unfortuantely - just as incredible short in duration {:>)
 
However, getting to the point of your question - not to worry.  It has no significant effect on the Air/Fuel mixture.  It is not as if this energy wave is pushing a fresh batch of air into the equation (without compensating with more fuel ) and therefore upsetting the A/F ratio.  Rather, view it as simple a mechansim for ensuring that more of the air/fuel mixture already there at the intake port gets into the chamber each time it opens.
 
Hope this helps.
 
I see you have a new cowl on order.  I was wondering exactly what configuration for cooling do you have in mind?  I presume the two evaporator core approach is just not configuration compatible with all you need to put under the cowling.  One thing, my brief experiment with reducing the inlet size by 33% tells me, is that contouring the flow from inlet to radiator does indeed make a significant difference in cooling performance. 
 
Hang in there.  I know about the harassment you take from the Lycoming guys.  But who really cares, they pay their outlandish prices for 1932 technology and think they have a great deal. Nothing wrong with a Lycoming as an aircraft engine except its price, reliability, price, maintance cost, price, etc.. 
 
I now have more hours behind a rotary than a Lycoming (about 400 total with 220 behind the Rotary), which I consider a milestone {:>)
 
Ed Anderson



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