X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from web180013.mail.gq1.yahoo.com ([67.195.8.77] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with SMTP id 3481555 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:42:18 -0500 Received: (qmail 90670 invoked by uid 60001); 7 Feb 2009 17:42:18 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=bellsouth.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=3WWs9RdtxnvIG/kHXmQOa10rD6pLRGyIKSPjjtcx9cqhH+F1sLU3nzhJba4RY+X3wbziLaPrCQrhTyNrNZ21uU+YHxxW5EDP5nNr7SxhhSjYVEVrMwtMkvLaShbn3oLHDEzUSVIigyxROQvl2Q+ERpRx9uF7FVwu3juHdd7QEE4=; X-YMail-OSG: kJXCk_wVM1lRzFvWfIL3X_K6K1XfG.XTLm7rQ7DRtIqVvQVadg8u.RdL0fQ0mxXmIxezB7ZSmGIKZOC48G4TEAA5KGINHsIJVMf9nLJj7rIj38eGAYVDUT5fLhVQjq_PLaeRXnRGtZnO70UVhqZzFfoeXrABrbAUwCFDhTlmG1c1vhO1XFEPC2rUY_nRxsGVdw-- Received: from [68.158.224.100] by web180013.mail.gq1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 07 Feb 2009 09:42:18 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.7.260.1 Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:42:18 -0800 (PST) From: Bryan Winberry Reply-To: bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: renesis intake possibility To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-2144555529-1234028538=:90097" Message-ID: <876791.90097.qm@web180013.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --0-2144555529-1234028538=:90097 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed, Thanks for your thoughts. I think Tracy just spoke the other day about feeding 4 runners from 2 mains= .=A0 So, I thought that using 4 TB's and reducing from 48mm (1.65in) to 1-1= /4 would avoid what you described. Do feel that the reduction ratio had any effect on your performance? =A0 Another plus with setup, is that the fuel rail is on the cold side of the e= ngine.=A0 Which brings up another question.=A0=A0Which is better; injectors= near or far from the port? =A0 Discuss, BW=A0=A0 --- On Sat, 2/7/09, Ed Anderson wrote: From: Ed Anderson Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: renesis intake possibility To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Date: Saturday, February 7, 2009, 10:33 AM Hi Bryan, =A0 Welcome.=A0 Here is my experience using a TWM throttle body (a different mo= del than you are looking at).=A0 Back in 1992 there was no one around that = I was aware that could provide any answers to what made a good induction co= nfiguration for a flying rotary.=A0 So I turned to the only =93rotary aware= =94 crowd around and that was those racing with rotary engines. =A0 So after discussing my needs, I purchase a TWM throttle body with 4 injecto= r positions.=A0 It was a two throat (Webber style) design with each throat = 2=94 in diameter.=A0 Two injectors per port (I used MSD 32 lb/hr injectors = that fit the injector holes) for a total of 4 injectors on the TB.=A0 The T= WM throttle body was then bolted to a cast aluminum =A0=93Webber=94 style r= otary intake manifold which then took the two TB channels and divided them = into 4 (two primary and two secondary) distribution runners. =A0 I estimate that the best HP I ever made with that set up was around 130-140= HP.=A0 My static rpm was 4800 swinging a 68x72 two bladed wooden prop using= the 2.17:1 gear ratio. =A0 I later replaced that arrangement with 4 tubes of smaller diameter (1 =BC= =94 for primary and 1 =BD=94 for secondary), made the runners longer in len= gth and install the stock Mazda 3 port TB which had considerably smaller op= enings than the TWM arrangement. =A0 I immediately picked up over 300 fpm increase in my ROC and top speed moved= from 186 MPH TAS to 195 MPH TAS. =A0 As I learned over the years, it became apparent that what works great for t= he racers turning 9000 + rpm may well suck (but may not suck very well =96 = pun intended) =A0at 5000-6000 and was therefore of questionable use for air= craft.=A0 As best I could figure out the problem, it appears that with the = large runner openings and runners that the mixture velocity in the runners = was very much lower than optimum.=A0 That meant the air mass had little mom= entum and did a poor job of filling the combustion chambers during the shor= t time they were open.=A0 By going to smaller runners, the mixture velocity= increased considerably and resulted in more mixture in the combustion cham= ber and more power.=A0=A0 Now if I could of somehow (using a shifting gear = box?) have gotten my rpm range up into the 8000 + range, then that intake s= ystem might have been the cat=92s meow =96 but, of course, I could never ge= t above 4800 rpm static (and about 5400 once airborne) =A0 Now the TWM Throttle body in the photo based on your description may not ha= ve the same problems as it does have a considerably smaller throat than the= one I used.=A0 I personally do not believe the use of the four throats wou= ld give you what you are looking for =96 however, the use of two of the thr= oats (one module) might work.=A0 You could always place your second injecto= rs else where on the secondary part of the intake.=A0=20 =A0 Just my opinion, of course, if the price is really good, you have little to= lose if it doesn=92t work out. =A0 I now use a $25 65 mm dia Mustang throttle body which is much lighter (and = much, much cheaper) than the TWM model I purchased back over 15 years ago. =A0 Good luck on your project =A0 Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW =A0 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of Bryan Winberry Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:57 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] renesis intake possibility =A0 Hello all, I have a chance to purchase a TWM throttle body(see attch pic) at a=A0very = low price.=A0=A0I have a couple questions for the group. =A0 The inlets are 42mm (appx 1.65 in.).=A0 Is=A0this too big to the point that= they would be incompatible with the injectors?=A0 I plan on using 1-1/8 an= d1-1/4 in runners. =A0 Also, the bosses are=A0sized for Bosch, Rochestor, or Lucas injectors.=A0 D= oes this necessarily eliminate my using the stock Renesis injectors? =A0 This setup also would allow the use of a lightweight airbox=A0=A0thus simpl= ifying the intake system from a manufacturing standpoint. =A0 Thanks in advance, Bryan RV7, Renesis,RD-1C,EC3,EM3=A0(in the pipeline I hear) =A0 =A0 --0-2144555529-1234028538=:90097 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I think Tracy just spoke the other day about feeding 4 runners from 2 = mains.  So, I thought that using 4 TB's and reducing from 48mm (1.65in= ) to 1-1/4 would avoid what you described.
Do feel that the reduction ratio had any effect on your performance?
 
Another plus with setup, is that the fuel rail is on the cold side of = the engine.  Which brings up another question.  Which is bet= ter; injectors near or far from the port?
 
Discuss,
BW  

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Ed Anderson <eander= son@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: renesis intake possibility
To: "Rotary motors= in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Date: Saturday, Februa= ry 7, 2009, 10:33 AM

Hi Bryan,

 <= /DIV>

Welcome.  Here i= s my experience using a TWM throttle body (a different model than you are l= ooking at).  Back in 1992 there was no one around that I was aware tha= t could provide any answers to what made a good induction configuration for= a flying rotary.  So I turned to the only =93rotary aware=94 crowd ar= ound and that was those racing with rotary engines.

 <= /DIV>

So after discussing m= y needs, I purchase a TWM throttle body with 4 injector positions.  It= was a two throat (Webber style) design with each throat 2=94 in diameter.&= nbsp; Two injectors per port (I used MSD 32 lb/hr injectors that fit the in= jector holes) for a total of 4 injectors on the TB.  The TWM throttle = body was then bolted to a cast aluminum  =93Webber=94 style rotary int= ake manifold which then took the two TB channels and divided them into 4 (t= wo primary and two secondary) distribution runners.

 <= /DIV>

I estimate that the b= est HP I ever made with that set up was around 130-140HP.  My static r= pm was 4800 swinging a 68x72 two bladed wooden prop using the 2.17:1 gear r= atio.

 <= /DIV>

I later replaced that= arrangement with 4 tubes of smaller diameter (1 =BC=94 for primary and 1 = =BD=94 for secondary), made the runners longer in length and install the st= ock Mazda 3 port TB which had considerably smaller openings than the TWM ar= rangement.

 <= /DIV>

I immediately picked = up over 300 fpm increase in my ROC and top speed moved from 186 MPH TAS to = 195 MPH TAS.

 <= /DIV>

As I learned over the= years, it became apparent that what works great for the racers turning 900= 0 + rpm may well suck (but may not suck very well =96 pun intended)  a= t 5000-6000 and was therefore of questionable use for aircraft.  As be= st I could figure out the problem, it appears that with the large runner op= enings and runners that the mixture velocity in the runners was very much l= ower than optimum.  That meant the air mass had little momentum and di= d a poor job of filling the combustion chambers during the short time they = were open.  By going to smaller runners, the mixture velocity increase= d considerably and resulted in more mixture in the combustion chamber and m= ore power.   Now if I could of somehow (using a shifting gear box= ?) have gotten my rpm range up into the 8000 + range, then that intake syst= em might have been the cat=92s meow =96 but, of course, I could never get abo= ve 4800 rpm static (and about 5400 once airborne)

 <= /DIV>

Now the TWM Throttle = body in the photo based on your description may not have the same problems = as it does have a considerably smaller throat than the one I used.  I = personally do not believe the use of the four throats would give you what y= ou are looking for =96 however, the use of two of the throats (one module) = might work.  You could always place your second injectors else where o= n the secondary part of the intake. 

 <= /DIV>

Just my opinion, of c= ourse, if the price is really good, you have little to lose if it doesn=92t= work out.

 <= /DIV>

I now use a $25 65 mm= dia Mustang throttle body which is much lighter (and much, much cheaper) t= han the TWM model I purchased back over 15 years ago.

 <= /DIV>

Good luck on your pro= ject

 <= /DIV>

Ed

Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bryan Winberry
Sent: Saturday, February 07, = 2009 8:57 AM
To: Rotary = motors in aircraft
Subject:<= /B> [FlyRotary] renesis intake possibility

 

 <= /tr>

Hello all,

I have a chance to purchase a TWM throttle body(see attch= pic) at a very low price.  I have a couple questions for th= e group.

 

The inlets are 42mm (appx 1.65 in.).  Is this t= oo big to the point that they would be incompatible with the injectors?&nbs= p; I plan on using 1-1/8 and1-1/4 in runners.

 

Also, the bosses are sized for Bosch, Rochestor, or = Lucas injectors.  Does this necessarily eliminate my using the stock R= enesis injectors?

 

This setup also would allow the use of a lightweight airb= ox  thus simplifying the intake system from a manufacturing stand= point.

 

Thanks in advance,

Bryan

RV7, Renesis,RD-1C,EC3,EM3 (in the pipeline I hear)<= /SPAN>

 
--0-2144555529-1234028538=:90097--