X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4316158 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 May 2010 09:49:07 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.40; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100516134831.FFXS1296.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sun, 16 May 2010 09:48:31 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([174.65.188.54]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id JDmn1e0021ArRLm03DmnXF; Sun, 16 May 2010 09:46:47 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=J3o2LjFkw/E22IlEgQUY/UQPCs18Jo95jye/5rN+HKE= c=1 sm=1 a=rls0NC6LHlIA:10 a=ood2b7iyd8MA:10 a=KDuwdIr/YLANGuoY0nAeCQ==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=ekHE3smAAAAA:20 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=Kqv0Dv6ZUX3qZCDFrYsA:9 a=zn657OAlvOp_gl7RE-4A:7 a=tfxVMeuK4i99Bdt2vMIFjWtfp3IA:4 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=9M3DAB5Bs7sA:10 a=m01WZ1JvQN0A:10 a=c95Y75WW8wkA:10 a=1vhyWl4Y8LcA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=Kdvq3_aMx3VAcRQQ:21 a=WHVLC2J4SNktXn1a:21 a=yrNTqzvBDH3iQynekl4A:9 a=-Cng0z6mUsG9e6Mxkg4A:7 a=8lL5eIzAMIegPGYsO6rZFuMZkoAA:4 a=UbujwnyRtssc3IK0:21 a=zUjM85i9dwZfjFN_:21 a=KDuwdIr/YLANGuoY0nAeCQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Primary fuel rail for sale? Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 06:48:03 -0800 Message-ID: <7AE50BE2DD3E4D90952856F44D6DFC52@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4C3.BB8499B0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6856 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 Thread-index: Acr09kpZBmHGXerETPOS2UJYYKlMegAD2FMg In-reply-to: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4C3.BB8499B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Rob; =20 You may have to do some calling around. I bought a primary rail, with injectors, from SR Motorsports 925-516-8901. I think I also got the = injector connectors there. If they don't have one, ask for a referral. Did you = check with Bruce? You might also check with Atkins Rotary. Maybe do a Google search on 'rotary racing'. =20 Good luck, =20 Al =20 =20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Rob Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:49 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Primary fuel rail for sale? =20 Hi Everyone with 20Bs, Does anyone have a primary injector fuel rail ( the rail that is right against the engine) that came with their 20B that they are not using and would be willing to sell to me? =20 Robert Bollinger MR722 MUM 1000 N.4th ST Fairfield, IA 52557 (641)919-3213 20B on a BD-4 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Steitle =20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:04 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump =20 Bill, =20 =20 I'm willing to bet that if you had two calibrated pressure gauges, one = on each side of the water pump, that you would see pressure variations with rpm. I have only one pressure sensor/gauge and it's purpose is to = measure the "system pressure" at the point coolant exits the engine heading to = the radiator, but could be located anywhere in the system. The point being = that it measures the pressure in the cooling system in comparison to ambient pressure. It is pretty steady, but the primary purpose is to measure = the pressure in the entire cooling system. I'm sure if I had a second gauge = on the inlet to the engine coming from the radiator, that I would see that = the pressures do in fact change slightly with variations of rpm. Logic = tells me that if the pressure was the same throughout the system, then the = coolant wouldn't flow, even in a rotary. =20 =20 Mark S.=20 =20 On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: There is just not much about trying to cool a rotary that makes any = sense to me. =20 On Bill's graph, the water coming out of the engine is cool enough that = it doesn't need cooling which is good because it is coming out of the = radiators at essentially the same temp that it went in. Huh??? =20 The oil, on the other hand, is 40 degrees cooler half way thru the oil cooler than it is after the other half of the cooler and the filter. Somehow the oil is being heated back up by the second pass of the cooler = and by the time it goes into the engine, it is the same temp as the water = going in and out of the engine. Huh??? =20 Water pressure..the engine and coolant system has resistance to water = flow that would be like pumping water thru a pipe of some (unknown but unchanging?) diameter. At different engine speeds the pump would be = pumping different volumes of water. So a higher volume thru the same size pipe would mean that the water pressure will go up and down with the rpm of = the engine..Nope! doesn't happen. The water pressure doesn't seem to have anything to do with either the rpm or the temperature of the water. = Maybe the expansion of the water when it gets hot is close to the expansion of = the various water containers in the system??? Huh??? =20 Bill B =20 _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Schertz Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 11:13 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump =20 Ed, Here is a plot of temperature data, all taken with CHT thermocouples. Rad_in is clamped to the water pipe just before it splits to go to the = two radiators Rad_out is clamped to the exit water pipe after the flow from the two = rads has been recombined. Oil_filter is clamped to the oil line as it exits the filter and enters = the engine, and Oil Cool left end is bonded to the end away from the entrance/exit on = the oil cooler to tests that the oil cooler is working. As you know the = standard Mazda oil cooler sends the oil down to the end and back. I was getting = high oil temperatures on one of my (non thermocouple ) oil sensors, and = wanted to verify that the oil cooler was working. Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS Phase I testing =20 From: Ed Anderson =20 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:32 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump =20 Hi Bill, =20 Had seen your nice data before, but one thing finally awoke in my old = brain when I looked at it this time that I had not considered before. We know that parallel cores give slightly better efficiency than a serial core = set because the DT decreases for the second core in the series compared to = both parallel cores having the same DT (at least in theory). However, what jumped out at me this time was the real significance of the parallel = cores in cooling. In this case, I am assuming no thermostat in the coolant = flow. =20 If I understood your graphs correctly, it looks like you are getting = around 20 gpm flow with a single core (so presumably you would get a bit less = with two cores in series - but perhaps not significantly), but looks like = with parallel cores you are getting around 32 gpm flow. That is a 20/32 =3D approx 37 % more mass coolant flow through the engine. That means = (all else being equal), you should transfer 37% more heat out of the engine = per unit time with the parallel cores compared to the serial cores (assuming cores of same type and size). =20 =20 Now the engine is producing X amount of waste heat at Y HP that it needs = to get rid of. That won't change for a given power setting Y. So Q (waste heat X) produced by the engine should be a constant at Y Hp. =20 So taking Q =3D M*Dt/Cp and since Q (waste heat) =3D constant at power = setting Y, then with M (mass flow up 37%) implies that in this case Dt =3D = (Temp of coolant out of engine - temp of coolant into engine) should decrease by 37%. When you increase the mass flow and are removing the same quantity = of heat, the DT is of necessity a lower value. =20 If that is the case, then the question is - does this mean the temp of coolant into the engine increases - not necessarily desirable, or does = the Temp of coolant out of the engine decrease? Or a bit of both? I suspect it's a bit of both depending on the radiator's performance. If your radiators/air flow are the limiting factors, then transferring more heat = per unit time to the radiators is not going to buy you much. The reason is = that if it is not able to get rid of the heat at the faster rate and the DT between the coolant and air will be less.=20 =20 But, my guess is that this theoretical increase in heat removal by using parallel cores could be useful in some situations - again if you are = already limited in the airflow situation, then this won't make much difference. = It does suggest that using parallel cores could result in the need for core sizes 37% smaller. OR did I miss something here? =20 =20 Like your data in any case =20 Ed =20 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 http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm =20 _____ =20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Schertz Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:39 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump =20 Back in 2002 I measured the flow from a 13-B pump, attached to the = engine but driven with an electric motor. The curve is attached. I ran the pump = at 3 different RPM, established by changing the pulley size on the motor. = At 5594 rpm, the pump produced 19 psi at zero flow, and 44 gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course pumps less. =20 The other test I did was to measure the flow through one core of the two = I was using for my installation. That is the curve going up to the right = with the red dots as the experimental points. Since I am running my cores in parallel, the right hand rising curve is a 'calculated' flow response = for the parallel cores. =20 Finally, I hooked up the cores to the system, and pumped water through = them. The single large point represents where the flow and pressure came out, = very close to the calculated expected response. =20 All flow measurements were done by the "bucket and stop-watch" = technique, with multiple runs to get the flow. =20 Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS Phase I testing =20 From: Al Gietzen =20 Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump =20 Al, Are you sure of the 40 GPM? That seems like a lot. My radiator in/out = is 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per minute at = that flow rate. That is over 7 miles per hour! =20 Bill B When my 20B (with a 13B pump that Atkins referred to as 'high flow') was = on the dyno the measured flow was 48 gpm with the standard pulleys. I = expect the dyno cooling loop was fairly low pressure drop compared to our = typical systems, so I'm just guessing 40 gpm is in the ballpark. 628 fpm (10.5 ft/sec) would not be considered very high - - above 15 ft/sec I'd = consider high. Al =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4C3.BB8499B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Rob;

 

You may have to do some calling around.  I bought a primary rail, with injectors, from SR = Motorsports 925-516-8901. I think I also got the injector connectors there. If they don’t = have one, ask for a referral. Did you check with Bruce? You might also check with = Atkins Rotary. Maybe do a Google search on ‘rotary = racing’.

 

Good luck,

 

Al

 

 

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: Sunday, May 16, = 2010 4:49 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Primary fuel rail for sale?

 

Hi Everyone with = 20Bs,

Does anyone have a primary = injector fuel rail ( the rail that is right against the engine) that came with = their 20B that they are not using and would be willing to sell to = me?

 

Robert Bollinger
MR722 MUM
1000 N.4th ST
Fairfield, IA 52557
(641)919-3213

20B on a = BD-4

=

----- Original Message = -----

Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:04 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Bill, 

 

I'm willing to bet that if you had two = calibrated pressure gauges, one on each side of the water pump, that you would see pressure variations with rpm.  I have only one pressure = sensor/gauge and it's purpose is to measure the "system pressure" at the point = coolant exits the engine heading to the radiator, but could be located anywhere = in the system.  The point being that it measures the pressure in the = cooling system in comparison to ambient pressure.  It is pretty steady, but = the primary purpose is to measure the pressure in the entire cooling system.  I'm sure if I had a second gauge on the inlet to the engine coming = from the radiator, that I would see that the pressures do in fact change = slightly with variations of rpm.  Logic tells me that if the pressure was = the same throughout the system, then the coolant wouldn't flow, even in a rotary. =  

 

Mark S. 

 

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Bill = Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>= wrote:

There is just = not much about trying to cool a rotary that makes any sense to = me.

 

On Bill’s = graph, the water coming out of the engine is cool enough that it doesn’t = need cooling which is good because it is coming out of the radiators at = essentially the same temp that it went in.  Huh???

 

The oil, on the = other hand, is 40 degrees cooler half way thru the oil cooler than it is after = the other half of the cooler and the filter.  Somehow the oil is being = heated back up by the second pass of the cooler and by the time it goes into = the engine, it is the same temp as the water going in and out of the = engine.  Huh???

 

Water = pressure….the engine and coolant system has resistance to water flow that would be = like pumping water thru a pipe of some (unknown but unchanging?) = diameter.  At different engine speeds the pump would be pumping different volumes of water.  So a higher volume thru the same size pipe would mean that = the water pressure will go up and down with the rpm of the = engine….Nope! doesn’t happen.  The water pressure doesn’t seem to = have anything to do with either the rpm or the temperature of the = water.  Maybe the expansion of the water when it gets hot is close to the expansion of = the various water containers in the system???  Huh???

 

Bill = B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Schertz
Sent: Friday, May 14, = 2010 11:13 PM


To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Ed,

Here is a plot of = temperature data, all taken with CHT thermocouples.

Rad_in is clamped to the = water pipe just before it splits to go to the two radiators

Rad_out is clamped to the = exit water pipe after the flow from the two rads has been = recombined.

Oil_filter is clamped to = the oil line as it exits the filter and enters the engine, and

Oil Cool left end is bonded = to the end away from the entrance/exit on the oil cooler to tests that the oil = cooler is working. As you know the standard Mazda oil cooler sends the oil down = to the end and back.  I was getting high oil temperatures on one of my = (non thermocouple ) oil sensors, and wanted to verify that the oil cooler was working.

Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing

 

From: Ed Anderson =

Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:32 = PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = alternative water pump

 

Hi = Bill,

 

Had seen your = nice data before, but one thing finally awoke in my old brain when I looked at it = this time that I had not considered before.  We know that parallel cores = give slightly better efficiency than a serial core set because the = DT decreases for = the second core in the series compared to both parallel cores having the = same DT (at least in = theory).  However, what jumped out at me this time was the real significance of = the parallel cores in cooling.  In this case, I am assuming no = thermostat in the coolant flow.

 

If I understood = your graphs correctly, it looks like you are getting around 20 gpm flow with = a single core (so presumably you would get a bit less with two cores in = series – but perhaps not significantly), but looks like with parallel = cores you are getting around 32 gpm flow.  That is a 20/32 =3D  approx = 37 %  more mass coolant flow through the engine.   That means (all = else being equal), you should transfer 37% more heat out of the engine per = unit time with the parallel cores compared to the serial cores (assuming cores of = same type and size). 

 

Now the engine = is producing X amount of waste heat at Y HP that it needs to get rid = of.  That won’t change for a given power setting Y.  So Q (waste = heat X) produced by the  engine should be a constant at Y = Hp.

 

So taking Q =3D = M*Dt/Cp and since Q = (waste heat)  =3D constant at power setting Y, then with M (mass flow up = 37%)  implies that in this case D<= font size=3D2 color=3Dnavy face=3DArial>t =3D (Temp of coolant out of engine – temp of coolant = into engine)  should decrease by 37%.  When you increase the mass = flow and are removing the same quantity of heat, the DT is of = necessity a lower value.

 

If that is the = case, then the question is  - does this mean the temp of coolant into the engine increases – not necessarily desirable, or does = the Temp of coolant out of the = engine decrease? Or a bit of both?  = I suspect it’s a bit of both depending on the radiator’s = performance.  If your radiators/air flow are the limiting factors, then transferring = more heat per unit time to the radiators is not going to buy you much.  = The reason is that if it is not able to get rid of the heat at the faster = rate and the DT between the coolant and air will be less.

 

But, my guess is = that this theoretical increase in heat removal by using parallel cores could = be useful in some situations – again if you are already limited in = the airflow situation, then this won’t make much difference.  It =  does suggest that using parallel cores could result in the need for core = sizes 37% smaller.  OR did I miss something here?

 

 

 Like your = data in any case

 

Ed<= /p>

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Schertz
Sent: Thursday, May 13, = 2010 10:39 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Back in 2002 I measured the = flow from a 13-B pump, attached to the engine but driven with an electric = motor. The curve is attached. I ran the pump at 3 different RPM, established by = changing the pulley size on the motor. At 5594 rpm, the pump produced 19 psi at = zero flow, and 44 gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course pumps = less.

 

The other test I did was to = measure the flow through one core of the two I was using for my installation. = That is the curve going up to the right with the red dots as the experimental = points. Since I am running my cores in parallel, the right hand rising curve is = a 'calculated' flow response for the parallel cores.

 

Finally, I hooked up the = cores to the system, and pumped water through them. The single large point = represents where the flow and pressure came out, very close to the calculated = expected response.

 

All flow measurements were = done by the "bucket and stop-watch" technique, with multiple runs to = get the flow.

 

Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing

 

From: Al Gietzen

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 = AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = alternative water pump

 

Al,=

Are you sure of the 40 GPM?  That seems like a lot.  My radiator = in/out is 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per minute at = that flow rate.  That is over 7 miles per hour!

 

Bill B

When my 20B (with a 13B pump that Atkins referred to as = ‘high flow’) was on the dyno the measured flow was 48 gpm with the = standard pulleys.  I expect the dyno cooling loop was fairly low pressure = drop compared to our typical systems, so I’m just guessing 40 gpm is in = the ballpark.  628 fpm (10.5 ft/sec) would not be considered very high = - - above 15 ft/sec I’d consider high.

Al

 

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4C3.BB8499B0--