X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4574413 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 19:40:04 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ewy6 with SMTP id 6so72392ewy.25 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:28 -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=E0Tehvilkw5iQOlBmK3pn0iZI85qqWz7n+Zw6gAIwfc=; b=miDhqV77F6xSkPvDeiPMBTJhDlYtvNL228AVgdB5Kq/jCJ4V/gi9gQAlW2CBTgiDmp fctEbwb7K9dzjNL5g4usEn1DxqK9dx5thWLCvKIpd/OFWv5+HyutApk/GaQbKhAOlqt4 1zfh6GnFS5E6z42wuStwzwIYEYdVimbukRuUQ= 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=wtt7IWGUnu7GnU1tIlRB9rk0FQcsSO/O520cNUbeaXtTG0gk3ddj+P5n9gxeL856Ej Hg/9QEQdiA/ppYG+/L+DL6cDa/FMfq7RlToc4r+FYpcVyDbqIux3EZe1Qxmbjr6chf8k hvsHOMTtFaCq5y5MZCra/fvTWg03e8afuBxvg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.27.131 with SMTP id i3mr1174476ebc.12.1289435968023; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:28 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.213.36.17 with HTTP; Wed, 10 Nov 2010 16:39:27 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:39:27 -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=0015174bde20d5ab8c0494bc3446 --0015174bde20d5ab8c0494bc3446 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Ed, Yeah, I hear you. I doubt I will ever upgrade my FWF installation. I guess that's why I started with a 3-rotor. Besides, 4-rotor motors are hard to find, and too pricey for my wallet. But I wouldn't rule out a turbo a ways down the road. ;-) Mark On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: > Well, Mark, it would likely be the end of MY rotary journey - I think I > got one more FWF installation left in me - so its being saved for something > BIG! Besides 220 HP in my Rv-6A at basically the same weight as this 13B > and I think you could color me ecstatic {:>) > > Ed > > *From:* Mark Steitle > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:02 PM > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Improved performance of my new (2009) intake > manifold > > *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 >> >> > --0015174bde20d5ab8c0494bc3446 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed,

Yeah, I hear you. I doubt I will ever upgrade my FWF= installation. =A0I guess that's why I started with a 3-rotor. =A0Besid= es, 4-rotor motors are hard to find, and too pricey for my wallet. =A0But I= wouldn't rule out a turbo a ways down the road. =A0;-)=A0

Mark=A0

On Wed, Nov 10, 20= 10 at 4:27 PM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Well, Mark, =A0it would likely be the end=20 of=A0MY=A0rotary journey - I think I got one more FWF installation left in= =20 me - so its being saved for something=A0 BIG!=A0 Besides=A0 220 HP in=20 my Rv-6A at basically the same weight as this 13B and I think you could col= or me=20 ecstatic {:>)
=A0
Ed

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:02 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Improved performance of my new (2009)= =20 intake manifold

Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B= next=20 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@carolina.rr.com>=20 wrote:
Too bad, Dennis.=A0 I know there was some keen= =20 interest.
=A0
That's the curse with a small production ru= n of complex=20 design.=A0 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 manufac= tures=20 do it would be nice.=A0
=A0
My DIE concept provided similar performance inc= rease for=20 my older 13B - but, it was designed for a "Plugs Up" installati= on.=A0 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.=A0 I also trie= d=20 an adjustable design that would give "infinite" sweet spots, bu= t the=20 mechanical problems and compromises I made reduced the effectiveness to t= he=20 point of again not justifying production.
=A0
Now if Mazda would just come out with the 16B n= ext year=20 - that would be the answer.
=A0
Ed
=A0
=A0

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

As some of you know I started flying= my RV-7A=20 with a cut - off Renesis intake manifold.=A0 In 2009 I installed an new= =20 intake designed to route=A0pressure waves=A0from the closing of rotor=20 #1's intake=A0into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed.= =A0=20 After using the new intake for over a year I am still=A0very happy with= =20 it's performance.
=A0
I gained about 15 mph TAS at the sam= e altitude=20 and manifold pressure
My static engine rpm increased 300 t= o 350=20 rpm.
My takeoffs are faster and shorter w= ith=20 noticeable increase in acceleration
My climb rate increased
My oil and water cooling is more cri= tical now=20 because I make more HP.
=A0
But - I must confess I don't bel= ieve the manifold=20 can be reproduced economically.=A0 It's just too complicated.<= /div>
I also believe it should have slight= ly shorter=20 intake runners to increase the performance at higher RPM.=A0 Decreasing t= he=20 intake runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the= =20 system.
=A0
I have another concept for designing= a=20 Renesis=A0intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to= =20 Rotor #1 .=A0=A0
I believe it would be much easier to= build and=20 small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake wo= rks=20 well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and building=20 it.
=A0
Dennis Haverlah
=A0
=A0
=A0

--
Homepage:=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0=20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= /a>



--0015174bde20d5ab8c0494bc3446--