Hi Ed, does that mean you have 2 Hush Powers in series?
Jeff
From: Rotary motors in
aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 3:13 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] My Muffler experiments (long) was [FlyRotary] Re:
Mistral muffler.
Contrary to intuition – two parallel mufflers actually reduce the
sound less than one of the same type. If you have both rotor pulses going
through a single muffler you have a dominant high energy frequency (at 6000
rpm) of 200 Hz to filter. If you have a single rotor exhaust port with
its separate muffler then the dominant freq for each muffler is now 100Hz
rather than 200Hz. The dimensions for two mufflers of equivalent
effectiveness would need to be approx twice as large for the 100Hz pulse
of which you are required to hang TWO of these twice as larger hummers
underneath to get the same effectiveness in sound suppression as using one
muffler half the dimensions – or something along those lines.
So a single muffler (for sound suppression) appears to be a better
way to go – now if you are looking for power instead of sound suppression then
the story can be different.
Having experimented with several different approaches, the one that
seemed to have the most promise was the one in which I placed 3” diameter 1/8”
thick Stainless Steel discs. The discs had vanes cut from the outer
perimeter down to within 3/8 – 1/2” of the center. Then each vane was
bent approx 45 deg to the plane of the disc. These then had a 3/8” dia
hole drilled down the center and a rod on which 5 discs were strung and first
locked in using jam nuts (don’t bother trying) and later welded to the rod.
The idea was that the pulse in the exhaust would in effect see
(straight on) an almost solid metal disc and bounce back what pulse go through
the first disc would find a 2nd and 3rd and 4th
etc, where as the exhaust gas would fairly easily flow around the blades and
through the discs – relatively unimpeded (so the theory went {:>)).
The first one I made I used a 2” dia tube and discs – it was
tremendously effective in suppressing the sound – unfortunately it was equally
effective in suppressing power. So I concluded I needed a larger tube –
so went to the 3” dia tube and six discs.
This one I thought was really the solution (and may have been if I
had continued development) as it was very effective in suppressing the sound
(although not quite as much as the 2” tube) and I got 6000 rpm static. Ah
ha! I thought – this is it!!! I have succeeded. So I buckled up and ran
the engine up to 6000 rpm and launched. The only unfortunate aspect of
the flight is that I never got over 6000 rpm static {:<(.
I then cut the number of disc back to 4 and that appear to do the
job. However, my next flight was down to Tracy’s Crook. I was later
told by a witness to my take off that it sound like I had a turbine engine
under the cowl (more on that later). In any case, I noticed about 20
minutes into the flight that the EGT on one exhaust was up into the 1700 +
range whereas my normal EGT was more like 1550 -1600 max. After landing
at Tracy Crooks, I decided to determine what the problem was.
It turns out that the discs in one tube had broken loose of
their jam nuts and were free wheeling like a turbine blade inside the tube. Not
only were the tips of the discs burnished but you could clearly see the
polishing effect of their rubbing against the inside of the 3” tube.
So that explained the high EGT on the one tube (and the turbine sound reported)
the discs were acting like a freewheeling prop and impeding the flow of exhaust
gas.
So I decided to reduce the number of discs down to 3 and Tracy was
nice enough to weld the disc to the rod. Well, that seem to be the
answer. I was getting good power and good sound suppression still.
However, the discs only stayed welded to the rods for approx 2-3 weeks, and
then I began to find pieces of disc back by the end of the tube. The
pulse was too powerful and were slowly beating the stuffings out of the SS
blades on the discs and they were breaking off and leaving the tube .
By that time the expense (and more telling - the work) of six
experimentation with mufflers had taken their toll. I decided to have my
two tube header modified into one tube - turns out it cost twice to modify the
header as two hushpower mufflers. So I just kept my old 10 year old
header of stainless steel pipe and put on two hushpower mufflers. Not as
quite as my experimental design – but they have lasted.
So good luck folks, I’m eagerly awaiting the magic muffler design.
Ed
Ed
From: Rotary motors in
aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 10:57 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Mistral muffler.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I initially felt that the
Hushpower 2 was too heavy (10#/ea). I used it anyway out of desperation.
So, I really don't want to be dragging two of them around with me
everywhere I go if I can help it. I'm ready to give Al's design a
try.