Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #52888
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:39:27 -0600
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> 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

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:02 PM
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 <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> 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
 
 

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
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



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