X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m21.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.1) with ESMTP id 2836183 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:25:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.2; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-m21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d49.26fdde07 (39953) for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:24:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 15:24:23 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Oil flow rate To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1207596263" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5132 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1207596263 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/7/2008 8:43:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ALVentures@cox.net writes: Prior to building up my system I had data from my friend at the dyno facility showing 16 gpm oil flow at 6000 rpm on a 13B. My 20B engine on the dyno showed oil flow of 15 gpm at 6000 rpm, and it was still going up with rpm. This was with 100 psi oil pressure. Yet another fault with the Mazda oiling system, is that it limits oil pressure by dumping all excess oil above a set pressure through the regulator valve. This can be quite a bit of oil at high RPM and does nothing at all for the foaming problem, as the excess oil is sprayed back into the sump through the hole in the side of the relief valve. Another difference that I think about a lot is the rotor cooling oil spray nozzles in the center of the crank. When above 100 PSI, it is common to restrict the oil flow out of those two nozzles. When you jack up the oil pressure from 71.7 PSI to 100 or 110 or whatever you need, there is a considerable increase in flow through these holes. Oil flow across the bearings is improved as well, and that is the object of increasing the pressure. But most like the increase to show up more in the bearings than the nozzles, so restrictors are added. Not a big deal at lower RPM. They start out just about .230MM and I have mine down to .180MM with perfect results. We use Weber main fuel jets for restrictors. The balls and springs are removed. I would leave them in for airplane use as the oil pressure with this big leak is dismal at idle, as so many of the street racers find out. When we first started this madness in 1980, we had just the stock oiling system with a single remote filter element. The relief valve was jacked up to yield 80 PSI, from 71.7 which we thought was the big time racing oil pressure. Of course we didn't know about the baffle we should have been using, so the oil pressure was all over the place during the race. By the last lap, we could not hold 80 PSI in a straight line. The oil was mostly foam. We shifted at 9,000 RPM, but it would have made no difference with the ports we had back then. I think that was before K&N even started up. At least we didn't know of them. So we had Fram filters on a remote mount. Never a problem with the frams at that level of stress. So, we may have been below 12 GPM wide open. We had no way to know. Bearings were always perfect, so nothing was changed. The measured 16 GPM on the dyno with the stock system is how much the pump can put out, most of the time. Once it foams up the rate will drop off a bit. Sadly, if the pump were sized, (or geared through sprocket size) to produce just over 100 PSI at cruise speed, then the idle oil pressure would be nil. Mistral found the stock 86-90 pump to be deficient in performance, and were unable to bring their Rotary powered Piper to Sun&Fun a few years back. They sized the coolers based on the pump displacement times the cruise (Pump) RPM, and oil cooling was dismal. All of the numbers were good but the pump was not producing the flow rate they had expected. They removed the bug screen from the pickup, and things got better. They took out the multi grade airplane oil, and put in straight weight car oil. Less plastic and less foaming. (A racing oil with more anti foaming additive would be even better). Then they built their own pump housing and fed the suction side from both ends (like the FD pump) Now they have a pump. Of course they had the same problem, all stock systems have about the top 25% of product is dumped back into the pan, doing nothing at all for lubrication. Do you suppose that Mistral and others missed it by about 25%??? In any case they got it working, and I suspect at a bit more than 12 GPM. In the race car the pressure pump is over sized by quite a bit. But, the pressure is controlled by a relief valve between the two sides of the pump. So the pump puts out whatever pressure you adjust it too. Every drop of cooled filtered 100 PSI oil is used in the bearings and rotor cooling functions. So, total flow is exactly what the engine uses at 100 PSI and no more or less. There is no valve dumping oil at the end of the system. I have an Email in to K&N asking about the maximum flow rate to use in the HP3001. I will share that when it comes back. Lynn E. Hanover **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) -------------------------------1207596263 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 4/7/2008 8:43:22 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ALVenture= s@cox.net writes:

Prior to building up= my system I had data from my friend at the dyno facility showing 16 gpm oil= flow at 6000 rpm on a 13B.  My 20B engine on the dyno showed oil flow=20= of 15 gpm at 6000 rpm, and it was still going up with rpm.  This was wi= th 100 psi oil pressure.

Yet another fault with the Mazda oiling system, is that it limits oil p= ressure by dumping all excess oil above a set pressure through the regulator= valve. This can be quite a bit of oil at high RPM and does nothing at all f= or the foaming problem, as the excess oil is sprayed back into the sump thro= ugh the hole in the side of the relief valve. Another difference that I thin= k about a lot is the rotor cooling oil spray nozzles in the center of the cr= ank. When above 100 PSI, it is common to restrict the oil flow out of those=20= two nozzles. When you jack up the oil pressure from 71.7 PSI to 100 or 110 o= r whatever you need, there is a considerable increase in flow through these=20= holes. Oil flow across the bearings is improved as well, and that is the obj= ect of increasing the pressure. But most like the increase to show up more i= n the bearings than the nozzles, so restrictors are added. Not a big deal at= lower RPM. They start out just about .230MM and I have mine down to .180MM=20= with perfect results. We use Weber main fuel jets for restrictors. The balls= and springs are removed. I would leave them in for airplane use as the oil=20= pressure with this big leak is dismal at idle, as so many of the street race= rs find out.   
 
When we first started this madness in 1980, we had just the stock oilin= g system with a single remote filter element. The relief valve was jacked up= to yield 80 PSI, from 71.7 which we thought was the big time racing oil pre= ssure. Of course we didn't know about the baffle we should have been using,=20= so the oil pressure was all over the place during the race. By the last lap,= we could not hold 80 PSI in a straight line. The oil was mostly foam. We sh= ifted at 9,000 RPM, but it would have made no difference with the ports we h= ad back then. I think that was before K&N even started up. At least we d= idn't know of them. So we had Fram filters on a remote mount. Neve= r a problem with the frams at that level of stress. So, we may have been bel= ow 12 GPM wide open. We had no way to know. Bearings were always perfect, so= nothing was changed.
 
The measured 16 GPM on the dyno with the stock system is how much the p= ump can put out, most of the time. Once it foams up the rate will drop off a= bit. Sadly, if the pump were sized, (or geared through sprocket size) to pr= oduce just over 100 PSI at cruise speed, then the idle oil pressure would be= nil.
 
Mistral found the stock 86-90 pump to be deficient in performance, and=20= were unable to bring their Rotary powered Piper to Sun&Fun a few years b= ack. They sized the coolers based on the pump displacement times the cruise=20= (Pump) RPM, and oil cooling was dismal. All of the numbers were good but the= pump was not producing the flow rate they had expected. They removed the bu= g screen from the pickup, and things got better. They took out the multi gra= de airplane oil, and put in straight weight car oil. Less plastic and less f= oaming. (A racing oil with more anti foaming additive would be even better).= Then they built their own pump housing and fed the suction side from both e= nds (like the FD pump) Now they have a pump. Of course they had the same pro= blem, all stock systems have about the top 25% of product is dumped back int= o the pan, doing nothing at all for lubrication. Do you suppose that Mistral= and others missed  it by about 25%???
In any case they got it working, and I suspect at a bit more than 12 GP= M.
 
In the race car the pressure pump is over sized by quite a bit. But, th= e pressure is controlled by a relief valve between the two sides of the pump= . So the pump puts out whatever pressure you adjust it too. Every drop of co= oled filtered 100 PSI oil is used in the bearings and rotor cooling function= s. So, total flow is exactly what the engine uses at 100 PSI and no more or=20= less. There is no valve dumping oil at the end of the system.
 
I have an Email in to K&N asking about the maximum flow rate to use= in the HP3001. I will share that when it comes back. 
 
Lynn E. Hanover 
 
 
 
 



Planning your summer=20= road trip? Check out AOL Travel Gu= ides.
-------------------------------1207596263--