Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #45085
From: George Lendich <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: renesis intake possibility
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 08:00:57 +1000
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Brian,
With Ed's help with the maths, I worked out my inlet diameter for my single development and found 44mm ideal.
 
In most carbs a necking down ( venturi) within the carb increases velocity - however at what point it becomes a restriction is unknown to me. I've noticed some slide carbs do away with the venturi for that reason.
 
So if 44mm is optimum (on paper) and no venturi, anything slightly smaller will increase velocity for max VE or if unsure do as I do and stick to 44mm.
 
A smaller runner like Ed uses is better for idle if you stage the openings as Mazda does.
 
If anyone needs the maths- e-mail me directly and I will pass on my word doc.
George ( down under) lendich@optusnet.com.au
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2009 3:42 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: renesis intake possibility

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 better; injectors near or far from the port?
 
Discuss,
BW  

--- On Sat, 2/7/09, Ed Anderson <eanderson@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, February 7, 2009, 10:33 AM

Hi Bryan,

 

Welcome.  Here is my experience using a TWM throttle body (a different model than you are looking at).  Back in 1992 there was no one around that I was aware that could provide any answers to what made a good induction configuration for a flying rotary.  So I turned to the only “rotary aware” crowd around and that was those racing with rotary engines.

 

So after discussing my needs, I purchase a TWM throttle body with 4 injector positions.  It was a two throat (Webber style) design with each throat 2” in diameter.  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.  The TWM throttle body was then bolted to a cast aluminum  “Webber” style rotary intake manifold which then took the two TB channels and divided them into 4 (two primary and two secondary) distribution runners.

 

I estimate that the best HP I ever made with that set up was around 130-140HP.  My static rpm was 4800 swinging a 68x72 two bladed wooden prop using the 2.17:1 gear ratio.

 

I later replaced that arrangement with 4 tubes of smaller diameter (1 ¼” for primary and 1 ½” for secondary), made the runners longer in length and install the stock Mazda 3 port TB which had considerably smaller openings than the TWM arrangement.

 

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

 

As I learned over the years, it became apparent that what works great for the racers turning 9000 + rpm may well suck (but may not suck very well – pun intended)  at 5000-6000 and was therefore of questionable use for aircraft.  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.  That meant the air mass had little momentum and did a poor job of filling the combustion chambers during the short time they were open.  By going to smaller runners, the mixture velocity increased considerably and resulted in more mixture in the combustion chamber and more 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 system might have been the cat’s meow – but, of course, I could never get above 4800 rpm static (and about 5400 once airborne)

 

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 you are looking for – however, the use of two of the throats (one module) might work.  You could always place your second injectors else where on the secondary part of the intake. 

 

Just my opinion, of course, if the price is really good, you have little to lose if it doesn’t work out.

 

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.

 

Good luck on your project

 

Ed


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: [FlyRotary] renesis intake possibility

 

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 the group.

 

The inlets are 42mm (appx 1.65 in.).  Is this too big to the point that they would be incompatible with the injectors?  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 Renesis injectors?

 

This setup also would allow the use of a lightweight airbox  thus simplifying the intake system from a manufacturing standpoint.

 

Thanks in advance,

Bryan

RV7, Renesis,RD-1C,EC3,EM3 (in the pipeline I hear)

 

 

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster