|
Ed; This is Dave Cook, we met at several Sun-n-Fun flyin's including this year. Do you (or anyone else reading) know anything about the Ivoprop magnum inflight adjustable, am still shopping for a prop, will need to make a choice VERY soon. Application will be; RV6A 13B Turrentine build w/mods done, RWS EC2, EM2 & PSRU-B, 3.5" throttlebody. Thanks, David.
-------------- Original message -------------- From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
> Thanks Charlie, I'll read the Low Flow Articles. > > Its no secret that you reduce exit airflow drag by accelerating it to the > outside airstream velocity. We also know that if we make an area smaller > that the air velocity will speed up. I will be very interested in how they > do it without incurring drag. It would take a higher pressure area in front > of the narrow exit in order to force the hot air through a smaller area. > Since mass flow will remain constant, you can increase the velocity and get > the same amount of air through a smaller exit area or increase the area and > get a larger volume of air through at a slower velocity. > > But when you decrease the exit area you generally will experie
nce pressure > increase in front of the narrow area (which in this case is inside the > cowl). That pressure increase in back of a core or fins would tend to > oppose the air flow coming in to the determent of good cooling. If they had > exhaust augmentation then I could see how that would work. > > But, I should stop speculating and read the articles and see if that > improves my understanding of how a smaller exit improves cooling. > > Ed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Charlie England" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 9:00 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exit area smaller than intake was External > Diffusion > > > > I've read several articles that talk about making the exit smaller than > > the inlet. The key was not exhaust augmenta
tion, but exit ducting that's > > effectively the reverse of the 'pressure recovery' of the inlet. Think of > > the P-51. IIRC, the CAFE Foundation articles talk about it. > > > > http://cafefoundation.org/v1/research.htm > > > > Try the 'local flow' articles (BTW, look at the most efficient exit shape; > > it's not gills or a 'reverse NACA'). > > > > I think that the old 130% of inlet ideas gained popularity before > > homebuilders really understood how to get air in & out of a cowling > > efficiently. If you look at that Mustang II in the exit area you will > > almost certainly see some significant changes from 'stock' below the > > cylinders & around the bottom of the firewall. I talked to Tracy Saylor > > (sp?), owner of the 180 hp, 230+ mph RV-6 about how he does it, & his mods > > to guide the air after it cools the
cylinders & oil are pretty impressive. > > > > Charlie > > > > Ed Anderson wrote: > > > >> Ok, thanks, Thomas. > >> > >> I understood correctly 135% OF the exit - just conveyed my understanding > >> improperly. Yes, if you have them already scanned I would like a copy. > >> I hope there are a few photos as I am interested whether or not they may > >> be using exhaust augmentation (whether they realize it or not). > >> > >> Ed > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas y Reina Jakits" > >> > >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > >> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 4:30 PM > >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exit area smaller than intake was External > >> Diffusion > >> &
gt; >> > >>> Ed, > >>> there is a mistake as the intake is not 135%bigger than, but 135% of the > >>> exit. > >>> It still makes it 1.35 times bigger than the exit. > >>> > >>> I posted this last in April 2005, the latest response to the subject was > >>> on > >>> 14th of december by Monty Roberts. > >>> It always starts with a question to verify the intake bigger than exit > >>> claim,but "no mistake" that's what it is! > >>> > >>> Please search the archive or let me know if you want me to repost the > >>> post! > >>> It was about Brian Schmidtbauers Mustang II being the fastest around! > >>> Also menetioned is Dave Anders' RV-4, details in the CAFE report. > >>> I have the essential pages of the Kitplanes article scanned,
let me know > >>> if > >>> you want them emailed.... > >>> > >>> It just shows that rules of thumb are not always the best solution. Most > >>> likely just the most economic one to build..... > >>> > >>> Thomas > >>> > >>> PS: Search "Kitplanes" and go for the 14th Dec.,2005 posts!! > >>> > >>> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson" > >>> > >>> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > >>> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 6:35 AM > >>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Exit area smaller than intake was External > >>> Diffusion > >>> > >>> > >>>> That's very interesting, Thomas. I too recall seeing in several places > >>>> reference to > >>>> exit area being some multiple of the inlet with the ratios varying from > >>>> 1.2 -1.7. > >>>> There certainly could be some kind of phenomena I have not hear of or > >>>> read about, but seems strange you would ever have your intake area more > >>> > >>> than > >>> > >>>> the exit area. But assuming no error then it would appear to me that > >>>> external diffusion is taking place. > >>>> > >>>> What that indicates to me is that the exit area (what ever size > >>>> it was) provides adequate airflow for cooling flow through the engine > >>>> compartment.(assumption is the engine did not get cooked). Enough air > >>> > >>> mass > >>> > >>>>
; HAD to leave the cowling sufficient to carry away the necessary BTUs of > >>>> heat. That said, then if the inlets were 135% larger than the exit > >>>> area, > >>>> then air HAD to be spilling around the inlet or area of external > >>> > >>> diffusion. > >>> > >>>> The air molecules in this part of the airflow (external to the cowl) > >>>> then > >>>> contributed NOTHING to carrying away heat from the engine, but do add > >>>> to > >>>> drag - that left only > >>>> the air that past through the core (or over the cooling fins of the > >>> > >>> cylinder > >>> > >>>> head) to provide for cooling. Since this air has now been heated and > >>> > >>> expands > >&
gt;> > >>>> to a larger volume, you traditionally need a larger exit area to > >>> > >>> accommodate > >>> > >>>> this large volume of heated air. That air must leave the engine > >>>> compartment via the exit. So I just am unable to come up with a > >>>> scenario > >>>> where having an inlet larger than the exit area would be beneficial. > >>>> > >>>> Having said that, it did just trigger a thought about why this might be > >>>> tried and > >>>> how it might be made to work. > >>>> . > >>>> We do know that for air exiting the cowl to provide minimum drag it > >>> > >>> ideally > >>> > >>>> should be accelerated back to the airstream velocity before > &g
t;>>> intermixing. > >>> > >>> We > >>> > >>>> can theoretically do this by taking the larger volume of heat air and > >>>> designing an exit area > >>>> which would accelerate the air molecules increasing the velocity of > >>>> the > >>>> exiting air and reducing drag. However, to accelerate the cowl air > >>> > >>> velocity > >>> > >>>> to anything really meaningful, > >>>> would require added energy. This leads me to believe that perhaps an > >>>> exhaust augmentation system could be used to provide increased velocity > >>>> to > >>>> the exiting air using the energy in > >>>> the exhaust flow. If the exiting airflow velocity is increased over > >>>> t
han > >>>> normally associated with exiting air, then more air of course could > >>>> flow > >>>> through a smaller opening, this would perhaps permit one to have a > >>>> smaller > >>>> exit area than intake area and still > >>>> get good cooling and low cooling drag. > >>>> > >>>> So with an exhaust augmentation system "helping" the air in the cowl to > >>> > >>> exit > >>> > >>>> quicker and at a higher velocity, I can see where a smaller exit area > >>> > >>> might > >>> > >>>> indeed be workable. > >>>> But, without an exhaust augmentation system, I just don't see how a > >>> > >>> smaller > >>> > >>>> exit area
would be beneficial. > >>>> > >>>> Any mention of exhaust augmentation?? > >>>> > >>>> Well that my $0.02 worth on the topic > >>>> > >>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>> Ed Anderson > >>>> Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered > >>>> Matthews, NC > >>>> eanderson@carolina.rr.com> Hi Steve, > >>> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ > > > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|