X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4574216 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:49:08 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=uESSSoDEku2quKX/oFXS2Smn5+55LTFcWFr5T5T8nFs= c=1 sm=0 a=VLQ8tk7EzL0A:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:17 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=nTEMay4E9YVU_98iboQA:9 a=GvzA6xKYs-IvE75jyRoA:7 a=hb709GLg5HMUJtcXkv2XA4keaTEA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=VJO4ZmnhV0uPNnncCSEA:9 a=NraWe-1MSkmv_sPUT9AA:7 a=yALJRfS8MFsLG5gHrlHw7XcVFpgA:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.167.5 Received: from [174.110.167.5] ([174.110.167.5:52469] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 89/D3-07087-1331BDC4; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 21:48:33 +0000 Message-ID: From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:48:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01CB80F7.0FC02840" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01CB80F7.0FC02840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Too bad, Dennis. I know there was some keen interest. That's the curse with a small production run of complex design. If you = could justify the cost of a pattern and casting it/or injection molding = it out of high temp plastic like the automobile manufactures do it would = be nice. =20 My DIE concept provided similar performance increase for my older 13B - = but, it was designed for a "Plugs Up" installation. I briefly looked = into do a design for a Normal engine installation and too many = compromises and I figured to small a market to justify it. I also tried = an adjustable design that would give "infinite" sweet spots, but the = mechanical problems and compromises I made reduced the effectiveness to = the point of again not justifying production. Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B next year - that would be = the answer. Ed From: Dennis Havarlah=20 Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake = manifold As some of you know I started flying my RV-7A with a cut - off Renesis = intake manifold. In 2009 I installed an new intake designed to route = pressure waves from the closing of rotor #1's intake into rotor #2 just = before rotor #2's intake closed. After using the new intake for over a = year I am still very happy with it's performance. I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude and manifold pressure My static engine rpm increased 300 to 350 rpm. My takeoffs are faster and shorter with noticeable increase in = acceleration My climb rate increased My oil and water cooling is more critical now because I make more HP. But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can be reproduced = economically. It's just too complicated. I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake runners to = increase the performance at higher RPM. Decreasing the intake runner = length probably would require complete new geometry of the system. I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using a = reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 . =20 I believe it would be much easier to build and small enough to fit into = the James rotorary cowl but because my intake works well I am not moving = ahead with completing the design and building it. Dennis Haverlah -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01CB80F7.0FC02840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Too bad, Dennis.  I know there was some = keen=20 interest.
 
That's the curse with a small production run of = complex=20 design.  If you could justify the cost of a pattern and casting = it/or=20 injection molding it out of high temp plastic like the automobile = manufactures=20 do it would be nice. 
 
My DIE concept provided similar performance = increase for=20 my older 13B - but, it was designed for a "Plugs Up" installation.  = I=20 briefly looked into do a design for a Normal engine installation and too = many=20 compromises and I figured to small a market to justify it.  I also = tried an=20 adjustable design that would give "infinite" sweet spots, but the = mechanical=20 problems and compromises I made reduced the effectiveness to the point = of again=20 not justifying production.
 
Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B = next year -=20 that would be the answer.
 
Ed
 
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) = intake=20 manifold

As some of you know I started flying my = RV-7A with=20 a cut - off Renesis intake manifold.  In 2009 I installed an new = intake=20 designed to route pressure waves from the closing of rotor = #1's=20 intake into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed.  = After=20 using the new intake for over a year I am still very happy with = it's=20 performance.
 
I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same = altitude and=20 manifold pressure
My static engine rpm increased 300 to = 350=20 rpm.
My takeoffs are faster and shorter with = noticeable=20 increase in acceleration
My climb rate increased
My oil and water cooling is more = critical now=20 because I make more HP.
 
But - I must confess I don't believe = the manifold=20 can be reproduced economically.  It's just too = complicated.
I also believe it should have slightly = shorter=20 intake runners to increase the performance at higher RPM.  = Decreasing the=20 intake runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the = system.
 
I have another concept for designing a=20 Renesis intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning = to Rotor=20 #1 .  
I believe it would be much easier to = build and=20 small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake = works=20 well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and building=20 it.
 
Dennis Haverlah
 
 
 

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01CB80F7.0FC02840--