Hi Dave,
Yes, the compressor map
only knows its input (not the engines input - lots of confusion out
there on this point) Some folk use the engine's CFM which is OK IF you
adjusted for the boost as you did. You appear to have the concept down.
However, I am a bit
confused, I notice your have a 13B, yet you use 222CFM at 3000 rpm -
which is about twice what you should be getting out of a 13B, I get
about 153 CFM. Wait! 153*1.6 = 244 CFM, Ok I see where you are coming
from. Now the crucial question is - does your engine produce enough
exhaust mass flow to drive the T06H turbine wheel fast enough to
produce 1.6 pressure ratio at sea level? If it does then 6000 rpm
underload will likely produce much more than 1.6 pressure ratio. What
I am saying is if you could get 1.6 at 3000 rpm then you would
unquestionably need a waste gate to keep from blowing your engine at
6000 rpm under load.
Also notice I keep referring
to Load. If you are not producing a load on the engine (like when you
are at idle) then your exhaust mass flow is very low and therefore so
is your turbine speed and boost (you may be getting some, but not
enough to get your boost gauge much past atmospheric) in none existent.
That is what makes it
difficult to predict exactly what is going to be the end condition.
Yes, you are correct, if you
have to err then error toward the side of less efficiency - that means
you air will run hotter, but surge can destroy a turbocharger and
damage an engine if encountered, so I would stay away from the left
side.
Now one thing about the T06
- its not the best match for the 13B in my opinion - not to say it can
not be used. But, lets say you only want to run 2- 3 psi of boost on
an extended climb to keep temps down (hypothetical case). That would
gives a pressure ratio of (taking the 3 psi). of (14.7+3)/14.7
=.17.7/14.7 = 1.2 pressure ratio which is off the map for the T06 as
you can see.
The T04 is a better choice
in my opinion since we are unlikely to be running above 10 psi of boost
- at least I would not in an aircraft application.
Selection of the compressor
wheel is 1/2 of the challenge. Compressor maps and an understanding of
your engine flow capability and how to compare compressor maps takes
care of that part. The second half of the equation is getting the
right turbine wheel and correct A/r size for your Turbine housing. The
is no cut and dry formula for that although Corky Bell in his book
"Maximum Performance" has some general guide lines to get you in the
ball part.
Even with our stock Mazda
which is apparently excellent on the second generation Turbo engines
turns out not be the right combination for aircraft. It was designed to
produce lots of boost at low engine rpms (read low exhaust mass flow)
and the engineers decided that most folks would not keep their foot to
the floor for over a few seconds. Well, that turbine housing was
specifically designed for low rpm acceleration rush, high engine rpms
for long duration are simply pushing the stock turbo beyond its design
and intended limits as configured for the auto. An Aussi company is
making some modifications to the stock turbo which make it much better
suited for our aircraft needs in my opinion.
John Slade should be
receiving his in a week or so and hopefully we will see how it does.
In any case, Dave, you are
on the right track. I especially like the fact your are considering
the effect of "boost creep" caused by lessen ambient pressure at
altitude - not everyone considers that important factor. They may
luck-out or not.. Failing to do that can have you trying to use a
turbo that is near or in its surge zone under boost at altitude.
Hope this helps
Ed
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Sunday, August 22, 2004 11:39 AM
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Re: Compressor maps
Ed,
I am trying to work my way through the compressor maps and
formulae that I have stumbled across in the past few days, and looking
at your formula, I am able to make sense of it.. and I am using a
website with a calculator built in that reproduces your values...but
the value of 277 cfm.. thats how much air the engine is pumping
normally aspirated at wide open throttle.. right?
So plotting this at 1.0 atm and 277 cfm wouldnt event be on the "map"
at all.. If I am understanding this at all.
Using the TD06H-20G map listed at http://cybrina.mine.nu/MR2_Docs/compressor_flow_maps.htm
(and attached to this mail)
if I wanted to maintain 23 PSIA (8.3 PSIG) boost (48" map). which comes
out to a presure ratio of 1.6..
. then I would need to calculate the CFM required at 1.6 PR..
At 3000 rpm I am getting 222 CFM and
At 6000 rpm I am getting 444 CFM... (1.6 PR),
which falls in the map on that site....
To take it further.. if I wanted to maintain that amount of boost (23
PSIA/8.3 PSIG) to say.. 12,000 feet..
Ambient pressure at 12k is a ballpark value 18"/9psi.. the pressure
ratio there is 2.5...
3000 rpm, PR 2.5, comes out to 347 CFM.. appears to fall just left of
where I'm told the "surge line" is
6000 rpm, PR 2.5 equals 697 CFM and falls to the right of the 65%
efficiency island..
If I am interpreting this correctly that means that this turbo would be
able to give the desired performance but would NOT be able to maintain
23" absolute boost to 12k feet....
5000 rpm at 2.5 PR gives 578 CFM and DOES fall within the map though...
I am throwing all this out there to see if I am grasping the concept
clearly or not.. and to see what I need to adjust conceptually..
I am also guessing that the .55 value listed below by Mike, is BSFC..
correct?
I am trying to comprehend the "volumetric efficiency" concept as it
relates to pressurized/charged intakes.. are we assuming a value of
1.0/100% or is this not realistic? What about porting... will that
improve the VE? (I'm wanting to say YES) Iis it realistic or even
possible to have a VE > 1.0/100%?
The reason for all the head scratching on my end is that I have several
turbo 13b cores.. but none of them have turbo's attached.. so I get to
pick what I want on there.. but I want to make sure I have a grasp of
the concept before I start turbo shopping..
I must admit that this listserv group has been a literal gold mine of
information. I have exposed to a truckload of data in the past 2 weeks
and am just trying to organize it at this point.
Dave Staten
2nd Gen 13B rebuild in progress..
Ed Anderson wrote:
Mike makes a good point. While the official displacement of the 13B is
1.308 liters (actually 1308 cc), for airflow/power purposes it acts the same
as a 4 cylinder engine of 40 CID (each cylinder) or 160 CID or 2.6 Liters.
CFM = (4*40)RPM/(1728*2) so for 6000 rpm, CFM = 160*6000/(1728*2) = 277.77
CFM at 100 Ve
Some compressor maps use CFM on the X axis and some use mass flow usually
Lbs/min. My spreadsheet automatically calculates the lbs/min of air flow
for every rpm and power situation. Or its easy enough to calculate.
Just multiply your air flow volume in CFM by 0.076 for sea level density.
So in this case 277.77*0.76 = 21.1052 lbm/min
Ed
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Robert" <pmrobert@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2004 11:14 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Compressor maps
John Slade wrote:
John, here is a URL to a pretty good discussion on reading compressor
maps with examples
http://cybrina.mine.nu/MR2_Docs/compressor_flow_maps.htm
That's great, Ed. And you did it in one sentence. :)
Do you happen to know the engine capacity (in litres) and the
volumetric efficiency of an REW engine?
Regards,
John
John, the auto people use 2.6 litres and .55 for those turbo map calcs.
HTH, Mike
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html