Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 811778 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:41:26 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-185-127.carolina.rr.com [24.74.185.127]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j2JMebLw019000 for ; Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001501c52cd4$b3b63980$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake Ideas.... Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:40:50 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C52CAA.CAAE2500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C52CAA.CAAE2500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I understand, Tom. I have built 4 intake manifolds trying out various = ideas/theories of tuning and it is terrible complicated in that you have = two basic phenomena occurring in any intake. The is the inertia or = momentum action of the macroscopic movement of the air mass being = pulsated by the opening and closing of the rotor intakes. This air mass = may hit Mach 0.6 but the average is closer to 150- 200mph. Then there = is the Finite Amplitude Waves (FAW) which travel at the speed of sound = and which may be pushing molecules in the same (helps) or opposite = direction of the main air mass. At different rpms these two phenomena = may work either together or against each other. When they are working = together you can get close a 15% increase in power according to the = results the Mazda engineers reported in SAE papers. The FAW is the principal on which the 13B NA Dynamic Intake effect (self = supercharging ) is based on. Fascinating but complex topic - these two = phenomena is probably the reason that frequently what on the surface = appears to be a good intake design is mediocre and a apparently poor = design does better than expected.=20 There are of course the numerous other factors of which you have = mentioned, cooling the air increasing the density, sequential injection = rather than batch, no throttle plates in the intake just one that slides = completely out of the way, etc, etc. I must warn you though, if you = start messing with intakes - make certain your aircraft project is = finished otherwise you may never find time for it. =20 I am most interested in any intake experimentation you undertake, so = please keep me apprised (off line if you prefer) Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 12:35 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake Ideas.... Saturday morning, coffee in hand.=20 That's it Ed, I meant to say I would primarily run at or above = 7000rpm. ;) For reference I'll have to dig out my copy of Tracy's = papers to see what his Dynamic Manifold looked like. =20 I can't ignore results various guys got but I wish I could see pics of = all the installations and the results they got them. I can see other = things that would be involved, such as specific shape of the plenum, = location of the throttle-plate in the system, and smoothness of the = manifold baseplate --> gasket --> intake-port interface. Another = factor would have to be the change in location of fuel-injectors and = when they were timed to squirt. This was probably entirely overlooked = when declaring the primary reason manifold changes effected performance. = I'm not saying they're wrong, only that I'm not entirely on board = with the conclusions, yet.=20 I undertand another factor, especially for carburetors and = throttle-body-injectors (Ellison), would be the increasing air-density = after having applied a fuel mist to it and causing some cooling. I = understand some power enhancing fuel additives primarily work on this = principle. So extending runners would help this concept.=20 Here's a little perspective of runners and airstream momentums, chaos, = from my strange universe. As for airstream momentum, I would think it = would still be dependent on what's happening at both ends, at least in = the distances we're talking. With runners there's still chaos/confusion = in the plenum that feeds them and you would still have negative effects = from that (maximized when you're switching between the ports you're = feeding and minimized near the end of port feeding when airflow is = established and moving along but still with some residual chaos). So = plenum+runners or plenum-only you still have this issue. Runners = themselves, with or without plenums, add another level of airstream = momentum issues, as you already mentioned with DIE.=20 Airstream momentum in runner-only designs where each has a = throttle-plate, ....well...some other time.=20 Also I was thinking of what must be happening inside these plenums = several guys have where it's essentially a tube with a throttle-plate on = one end and runners attached along the sides. They seem to work but to = me the changing air-pressures in the two halves and changing airstream = momentums during port changes are totally negative.=20 Now if only I can convince laws of nature to swing my way... Tom, speculation galore Ed Anderson wrote: It all depends, Tom. ..... Now if your engine is going to turn 7000+ = rpm then I would agree larger dia shorter tubes are called for...... -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site! ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C52CAA.CAAE2500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I understand, Tom.  I have built 4 = intake=20 manifolds trying out various ideas/theories of tuning and it is terrible = complicated in that you have two basic  phenomena occurring in = any=20 intake.  The is the inertia or momentum action of the macroscopic = movement=20 of the air mass being pulsated by the opening and closing of the rotor=20 intakes.  This air mass may hit Mach 0.6 but the average is closer = to=20 150- 200mph.  Then there is the Finite Amplitude Waves (FAW) = which=20 travel at the speed of sound and which may be pushing molecules in the = same=20 (helps) or opposite direction of the main air mass.  At different = rpms=20 these two phenomena may work either together or against each = other.  When=20 they are working together you can get close a 15% increase in power = according to=20 the results the Mazda engineers reported in SAE papers.
 
The FAW is the principal on which the = 13B NA=20 Dynamic Intake effect (self supercharging ) is based on.  = Fascinating but=20 complex topic - these two phenomena is probably the reason that = frequently what=20 on the surface appears to be a good intake design is mediocre and a=20 apparently  poor design does better than expected.
 
There are of course the numerous other = factors of=20 which you have mentioned, cooling the air increasing the density, = sequential=20 injection rather than batch, no throttle plates in the intake just one = that=20 slides completely out of the way, etc, etc.  I must warn you = though, if you=20 start messing with intakes - make certain your aircraft  project is = finished otherwise you may never find time for it. 
 
I am most interested in any intake = experimentation=20 you undertake, so please keep me apprised (off line if you = prefer)
 
Ed A
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 = 12:35=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake = Ideas....

Saturday morning, coffee in hand.
 
That's it Ed, I meant to say I would primarily run at or = above=20 7000rpm.  ;)       For reference = I'll have=20 to dig out my copy of Tracy's papers to see what his Dynamic Manifold = looked=20 like.   
 
I can't ignore results various guys got but I wish I could see = pics of=20 all the installations and the results they got = them.     I=20 can see other things that would be involved, such as specific shape of = the=20 plenum, location of the throttle-plate in the system,  and = smoothness of=20 the manifold baseplate --> gasket --> intake-port = interface.  =20 Another factor would have to be the change in location of = fuel-injectors=20 and when they were timed to squirt.  This was probably entirely=20 overlooked when declaring the primary reason manifold changes = effected=20 performance.    I'm not saying they're wrong, only = that=20 I'm not entirely on board with the conclusions, yet.
 
I undertand another factor, especially for carburetors and=20 throttle-body-injectors (Ellison), would be the increasing air-density = after=20 having applied a fuel mist to it and causing some = cooling.    I=20 understand some power enhancing fuel additives primarily work on this=20 principle.    So extending runners would help this = concept.=20
 
Here's a little perspective of runners and airstream = momentums,=20 chaos, from my strange universe.   As for airstream = momentum, I=20 would think it would still be dependent on what's happening at both = ends, at=20 least in the distances we're talking.  With runners there's = still=20 chaos/confusion in the plenum that feeds them and you would=20 still have negative effects from that (maximized when you're = switching between the ports you're feeding and minimized near the end = of port=20 feeding when airflow is established and moving along but still with = some=20 residual chaos).    So plenum+runners or = plenum-only you=20 still have this issue.    Runners themselves, with or = without=20 plenums, add another level of airstream momentum issues, as you = already=20 mentioned with DIE.
 
Airstream momentum in runner-only designs where each has a=20 throttle-plate, ....well...some other time.
 
Also I was thinking of what must be happening inside these = plenums=20 several guys have where it's essentially a tube with a throttle-plate = on one=20 end and runners attached along the sides.   They seem to = work but to=20 me the changing air-pressures in the = two halves and=20 changing airstream momentums during port changes are totally negative. =
 
Now if only I can convince laws of nature to swing my = way...
 
Tom,  speculation galore
 
 
Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> = wrote:
It all depends, Tom. ..... Now = if your=20 engine is going to turn 7000+ rpm then I would agree larger dia = shorter=20 tubes are called for......

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try=20 our new resources site! ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C52CAA.CAAE2500--