Return-Path: Received: from imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.70] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 610934 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:39:19 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.70; envelope-from=sqpilot@bellsouth.net Received: from [216.78.114.144] by imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050118013843.WYOL2069.imf22aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[216.78.114.144]> for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 20:38:43 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [265.6.13]); Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:38:38 -0600 Message-ID: <011901c4fcfe$6dbd9410$90724ed8@paul52u7f5qyav> From: "Paul" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: For Jerry: Inlet runners etc was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: For Al EWPs & Sump Heat Exchangers Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:38:36 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-41EC689E5136=======" --=======AVGMAIL-41EC689E5136======= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0116_01C4FCCC.23067450" ------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C4FCCC.23067450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jerry Hey=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: For Jerry: Inlet runners etc was Re: = [FlyRotary] Re: For Al EWPs & Sump Heat Exchangers=20 On Monday, January 17, 2005, at 06:15 PM, Leon wrote: Hi Jerry, =20 Looks like you have copped the same treatment that I copped, and = still continue to cop. HIM (His Imperious Majesty) never misses an = opportunity to put someone down if they are right and he is wrong. He's = been bad-mouthing me for the past three years. =20 Unfortunately, the majority on the ACRE mailing list believe = whatever HIM says is true, including all the the libel and slander. = And there is no right of reply or redress of grievances.=20 =20 As John Slade rightly says, those of us who know what it's all = about might start taking notice of him when he actually gets a plane in = the air, or even an engine running. But, what about all the poor = people who are being willingly misled??? In the meantime I suppose, = it's a case of "Them's wot can ... DO, them's wot carn't ... = prognosticate!" =20 As for the size of any PP runner, the ONLY way ANYONE will know is = to DO it, build the engine, and dyno the sucker. From my perspective = of a car racer, it's not only size, but actual port timing and shape = that makes a difference. This is all RPM dependent. The higher the = RPM, the more overlap and the bigger the ports and runners that can be = accomodated.=20 =20 As a racer (as opposed to an aviator), we are always trying to get = MAXIMUM power, which means BIG runners, and LOTS of ARE PEE EMMS. = Current PP thoughts are 52mm ports being fed by 60 mm throttle bodies = with a tapered runner. Great for 10,000 -11,000 RPM, But this just = wouldn't work in an aircraft. The engine wouldn't even get on the pipe = until around 5,500. A two piece, centre bearing crank is mandatory.=20 =20 Obviously, the corollary is true. While not being a fan of PPs for = aircraft use, I can only agree with you. At the RPM we are using in = aircraft, the overlap needs to be reduced (port size, shape, and = placement on the trochoid), and the runner sizes and lengths need to be = commensurate with the gas speed required, as well as any back pressure = caused by mufflers. In the end, this can only be a matter of applying = a bit of intelligent theory and doing some educated surmising, guided = by whatever people have done in the past, and then followed by trial and = error and dyno time. =20 For instance. I'm developing a four runner manifold for the race = car. The current one in the pix is steel (for ease of fabrication), = and will be replaced by an all alloy manifold once the development is = finished. So far, we have picked up an extra 25 BHP throughout the RPM = range, and something like 35-40 BHP at the top end. =20 I eventually want to have computer controlled adjustable length = runners. Easily done with a stepper motor and a worm shaft. Now I = already have a ROUGH idea about lengths, based on past expereince, but = until I actually put the car on the dyno, I really didn't know EXACTLY = what length would work at what RPM with the current style of = bridgeporting I'm using, and the actual mufflers and exhaust system on = the vehicle. =20 So, I've made the trumpets manually adjustable (crude by = effective), and have done some dyno tuning and track time to see what = lengths work at what RPM. I am now at that point in time where I can = get my machinist to make an adjustable trumpet mechanism of the correct = stroke. I know HIM has been talking about it, but I'm actually doing = something practical about it!! Just do likewise Jerry. Don't let the = nay sayers get you down. In the end, you will know who's right, = because the dyno is the final arbiter. =20 Cheers,=20 Leon Nice looking Bells, Leon. Point the injectors into the bell mouth and = you have what I am working on. We should have a prototype plenum with = fuel rails, filters, maybe even Ram within a month or so. I am not now = nor have I ever been worried about our p port performance. We have = Everett Hatch and Alan Tolle before us and Power Sport flying now, so we = know roughly what performance to expect. Plus I have the excellent = engineering of Rolf P. predicting what our performance will be. I have = never been tempted by larger p ports, as they are clearly not = appropriate for lower rpm engines( below 8000 rpm.) Our ports will = function to that level quite nicely. They are sized and positioned to = eliminate overlap as much as possible. They open late and close late. I = am willing to predict that we will make at least 210 hp at 6000 rpm and = maybe as much as 220. At 7500 rpm the hp will be around 250. But this is = just talk, enjoyable blather actually. The dyno will tell all. If the = engine can turn my 3 bladed Catto that was too much prop for a 200 hp = Lycoming, I will be happy. Jerry=20 Hey, Jerry....I truly hope you are very successful with these P = ports and that you get the hp numbers you are hoping for. We will all = benefit from your experimenting and fabrication efforts. Experimenters = are welcomed and encouraged on this site, not castigated and/or = belittled. Keep up the good work, and I wish you success with your = effots. Paul Conner =20 Homepage: = http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005 ------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C4FCCC.23067450 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jerry Hey
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 = 6:32=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: For = Jerry: Inlet=20 runners etc was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: For Al EWPs & Sump Heat = Exchangers=20


On Monday, January 17, 2005, at 06:15 PM, Leon=20 wrote:

Hi = Jerry,
 
Looks=20 like you have copped the same treatment that I copped,  and = still=20 continue to cop.  HIM (His Imperious Majesty) never misses = an=20 opportunity to put someone down if they are right and he is = wrong. =20 He's been bad-mouthing me for the past three=20 years.
 
Unfortunately, =20 the majority on the ACRE mailing list believe = whatever HIM  says=20 is true,  including all the the libel and slander.  And = there is=20 no right of reply or redress of=20 = grievances. 
 
As=20 John Slade rightly says,  those of us who know what it's all=20 about might start taking notice of him when he = actually gets a=20 plane in the air,  or even an engine running.  But,  = what=20 about all the poor people who are being willingly = misled???   In=20 the meantime I suppose,  it's a case of  "Them's wot = can=20 ... DO,  them's wot carn't = ... prognosticate!"
 
As=20 for the size of any PP runner,  the ONLY way ANYONE will know = is to DO=20 it,  build the engine,  and dyno the sucker.  From my = perspective of a car racer,  it's not only size,  but = actual port=20 timing and shape that makes a difference.  This is all RPM=20 dependent.  The higher the RPM,  the more overlap and = the=20 bigger the ports and runners that can be = accomodated. 
 
As=20 a racer (as opposed to an aviator),  we are always trying to = get=20 MAXIMUM power,  which means BIG runners,  and LOTS of ARE = PEE=20 EMMS.  Current PP thoughts are 52mm ports being fed by 60 = mm=20 throttle bodies with a tapered runner. Great for 10,000 -11,000 = RPM,  But this just wouldn't work in an aircraft.  = The engine=20 wouldn't even get on the pipe until around 5,500.  A two = piece, =20 centre bearing crank is=20 = mandatory. 
 
Obviously, =20 the corollary is true.  While not being a fan of PPs for = aircraft=20 use,  I can only agree with you.  At the RPM we = are=20 using in aircraft,  the overlap needs to be reduced (port = size, =20 shape,  and placement on the trochoid),  and the runner = sizes and=20 lengths need to be commensurate with the gas speed required,  = as well=20 as any back pressure caused by mufflers.  In the end,  = this can=20 only be a matter of  applying a bit of intelligent theory and = doing=20 some educated surmising,  guided by whatever people have done = in the=20 past, and then followed by trial and error and dyno = time.
 
For=20 instance.  I'm developing a four runner manifold for the race=20 car.  The current one in the pix is steel (for ease of=20 fabrication),  and will be replaced by an all alloy manifold = once the=20 development is finished.  So far,  we have picked up an = extra 25=20 BHP throughout the RPM range,  and something like 35-40 BHP at = the top=20 end.
 
I=20 eventually want to have computer controlled adjustable length=20 runners. Easily done with a stepper motor and a worm = shaft. =20 Now I already have a ROUGH idea about lengths,  based on = past=20 expereince,  but until I actually put the car on the = dyno,  I=20 really didn't know EXACTLY what length = would work  at=20 what RPM with the current style of bridgeporting I'm using,  = and the=20 actual mufflers and exhaust system on the=20 vehicle.
 
So, =20 I've made the trumpets manually adjustable (crude by = effective),  and=20 have done some dyno tuning and track time to see what lengths =  work at=20 what RPM.  I am now at that point in time where I can get my = machinist=20 to make an adjustable trumpet mechanism of the correct stroke.  = I know=20 HIM has been talking about it,  but I'm actually doing = something=20 practical about it!!  Just do likewise Jerry.  Don't let = the nay=20 sayers get you down.  In the end,  you will know who's=20 right,  because the dyno is the final=20 arbiter.
 
Cheers, 
Leon

Nice=20 looking Bells, Leon. Point the injectors into the bell mouth and you = have what=20 I am working on. We should have a prototype plenum with fuel rails, = filters,=20 maybe even Ram within a month or so. I am not now nor have I ever been = worried=20 about our p port performance. We have Everett Hatch and Alan Tolle = before us=20 and Power Sport flying now, so we know roughly what performance to = expect.=20 Plus I have the excellent engineering of Rolf P. predicting what our=20 performance will be. I have never been tempted by larger p ports, as = they are=20 clearly not appropriate for lower rpm engines( below 8000 rpm.) Our = ports will=20 function to that level quite nicely. They are sized and positioned to=20 eliminate overlap as much as possible. They open late and close late. = I am=20 willing to predict that we will make at least 210 hp at 6000 rpm and = maybe as=20 much as 220. At 7500 rpm the hp will be around 250. But this is just = talk,=20 enjoyable blather actually. The dyno will tell all. If the engine can = turn my=20 3 bladed Catto that was too much prop for a 200 hp Lycoming, I will be = happy.=20 Jerry

Hey, Jerry....I truly hope you = are very=20 successful with these P ports and that you get the hp numbers you = are hoping=20 for.  We will all benefit from your experimenting and = fabrication=20 efforts. Experimenters are welcomed and encouraged on this site, not = castigated and/or belittled.  Keep up the good work, and I wish = you success with your effots.  Paul=20 = Conner
 

<BTSRX3AirBox1.jpg><BTSRX3Trumpet= s3.jpg>=20 Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive:=20 = http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG=20 Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release = Date:=20 1/16/2005
------=_NextPart_000_0116_01C4FCCC.23067450-- --=======AVGMAIL-41EC689E5136======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.6.13 - Release Date: 1/16/2005 --=======AVGMAIL-41EC689E5136=======--