X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ey0-f180.google.com ([209.85.215.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4574234 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:02:53 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.180; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by eyf18 with SMTP id 18so223971eyf.25 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:02:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=VI2VVrD974r9MvMOki7wCJiTroE/BPVZB8LO0+3L2DY=; b=tx6wk0agSueSu+RLXqYEtBnOP50mD7i7eoUs3vB97clpsNiTR/nzb4KubJuHaU5fMr T0mIJbre9B/VCvqlLDoBsOT3Mz/2CAFy8ugC3Z5iZhnaQbTtbp4GByEmtVwLGw4+EX/Z ve/xU7WV2ycWQghX7DtjfmI5KYQcfH5VONP7c= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Hd0KEBDk5vBCM+8GphvqErhwLS3g4gdKuP3cUFzoqBcNlVlA8Gj+gQq+RBSHSRqDJj 656XkHo4KuKlxb/KVSWQSpYOOueOjnboaI7Q6UYqm+5Vkn3R3q7Xo50pFf4LG2HaMLR7 O3Af79sX8qfxF0Q8xZpOonIVPOye0Tea92MQk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.114.4 with SMTP id c4mr177228ebq.38.1289426537740; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.36.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:02:17 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c3d4abefbae0494ba0250 --0015174c3d4abefbae0494ba0250 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 *Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B next year - that would be the answer.* No Ed, that would only be the next step in the journey. Mark On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: > 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. > > 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 > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *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 . > 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 > > --0015174c3d4abefbae0494ba0250 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B= next year - that would be the answer.
=A0
No Ed, that would only be the next step in the journey.=A0
=A0
Mark

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@c= arolina.rr.com> wrote:
Too bad, Dennis.=A0 I know there was some keen in= terest.
=A0
That's the curse with a small production run = of complex design.=A0 If you could justify the cost of a pattern and castin= g it/or injection molding it out of high temp plastic like the automobile m= anufactures do it would be nice.=A0
=A0
My DIE concept provided similar performance incre= ase for my older 13B - but, it was designed for a "Plugs Up" inst= allation.=A0 I briefly looked into do a design for a Normal engine installa= tion and too many compromises and I figured to small a market to justify it= .=A0 I also tried an adjustable design that would give "infinite"= sweet spots, but the mechanical problems and compromises I made reduced th= e effectiveness to the point of again not justifying production.
=A0
Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B nex= t year - that would be the answer.
=A0
Ed
=A0
=A0

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <= /div>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) inta= ke manifold

As some of you know I started flying m= y RV-7A with a cut - off Renesis intake manifold.=A0 In 2009 I installed an= new intake designed to route=A0pressure waves=A0from the closing of rotor = #1's intake=A0into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed.= =A0 After using the new intake for over a year I am still=A0very happy with= it's performance.
=A0
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 wit= h noticeable increase in acceleration
My climb rate increased
My oil and water cooling is more criti= cal now because I make more HP.
=A0
But - I must confess I don't belie= ve the manifold can be reproduced economically.=A0 It's just too compli= cated.
I also believe it should have slightly= shorter intake runners to increase the performance at higher RPM.=A0 Decre= asing the intake runner length probably would require complete new geometry= of the system.
=A0
I have another concept for designing a= Renesis=A0intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Ro= tor #1 .=A0=A0
I believe it would be much easier to b= uild and small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my in= take works well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and buildi= ng it.
=A0
Dennis Haverlah
=A0
=A0
=A0

--
Homepage:=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html


--0015174c3d4abefbae0494ba0250--