X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from lincoln.lisco.com ([69.18.32.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4316239 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 16 May 2010 14:11:11 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.18.32.37; envelope-from=rob@mum.edu Received: from dell (76-76-232-54.lisco.net [76.76.232.54]) by lincoln.lisco.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A98042BEFD for ; Sun, 16 May 2010 13:10:36 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: Reply-To: "Rob" From: "Rob" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Primary fuel rail for sale? Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 13:10:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4F9.2A7C6570" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4F9.2A7C6570 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Al. Good suggestions. Rob ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Al Gietzen=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:48 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Primary fuel rail for sale? 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 -----=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 Bill, =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 Mark S.=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. 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=20 Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 5:32 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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). =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. 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. 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 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 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- 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=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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_01CAF4F9.2A7C6570 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Al. Good = suggestions.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Al = Gietzen=20
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 9:48 = AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Primary fuel=20 rail for sale?

Rob;

 

You may = have to do=20 some calling around.  I bought a primary rail, with injectors, = from SR=20 Motorsports 925-516-8901. I think I also got the injector connectors = there. If=20 they don=92t have one, ask for a referral. Did you check with Bruce? = You might=20 also check with Atkins Rotary. Maybe do a Google search on =91rotary=20 racing=92.

 

Good=20 luck,

 

Al

 

 

 

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: = Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Rob
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 4:49 = AM
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary]=20 Primary fuel rail for sale?

 

Hi Everyone with=20 20Bs,

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

 

Robert = Bollinger
MR722=20 MUM
1000 N.4th ST
Fairfield, IA=20 52557
(641)919-3213

20B on a=20 BD-4

----- Original Message = -----=20

From: Mark = Steitle=20

To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20

Sent:=20 Saturday, May 15, 2010 8:04 AM

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Bill,  =

 

I'm willing = to bet that=20 if you had two calibrated pressure gauges, one on each side of the = water=20 pump, that you would see pressure variations with rpm.  I have = only one=20 pressure sensor/gauge and it's purpose is to measure the "system = pressure"=20 at the point coolant exits the engine heading to the radiator, but = could be=20 located anywhere in the system.  The point being that it = measures the=20 pressure in the cooling system in comparison to ambient pressure. =  It=20 is pretty steady, but the primary purpose is to measure the pressure = in the=20 entire cooling system.  I'm sure if I had a second gauge on the = inlet=20 to the engine coming from the radiator, that I would see that the = pressures=20 do in fact change slightly with variations of rpm.  Logic tells = me that=20 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=20 12:21 AM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>= =20 wrote:

There is = just not=20 much about trying to cool a rotary that makes any sense to=20 me.

 

On=20 Bill=92s graph, the water coming out of the engine is cool enough = that it=20 doesn=92t need cooling which is good because it is coming out of the = radiators=20 at essentially the same temp that it went in.  = Huh???

 

The oil, = on the=20 other hand, is 40 degrees cooler half way thru the oil cooler than = it is=20 after the other half of the cooler and the filter.  Somehow the = oil is=20 being heated back up by the second pass of the cooler and by the = time it=20 goes into the engine, it is the same temp as the water going in and = out of=20 the engine.  Huh???

 

Water = pressure=85.the=20 engine and coolant system has resistance to water flow that would be = like=20 pumping water thru a pipe of some (unknown but unchanging?) = diameter. =20 At different engine speeds the pump would be pumping different = volumes of=20 water.  So a higher volume thru the same size pipe would mean = that the=20 water pressure will go up and down with the rpm of the = engine=85.Nope! doesn=92t=20 happen.  The water pressure doesn=92t seem to have anything to = do with=20 either the rpm or the temperature of the water.  Maybe the = expansion of=20 the water when it gets hot is close to the expansion of the various = water=20 containers in the system???  Huh???

 

Bill=20 B

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill = Schertz
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 = 11:13=20 PM


To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water = pump

 

Ed,

Here is a plot of = temperature=20 data, all taken with CHT thermocouples.

Rad_in is clamped to = the water=20 pipe just before it splits to go to the two=20 radiators

Rad_out is clamped to = the exit=20 water pipe after the flow from the two rads has been=20 recombined.

Oil_filter is clamped = to the oil=20 line as it exits the filter and enters the engine,=20 and

Oil Cool left end is = bonded to=20 the end away from the entrance/exit on the oil cooler to tests that = the oil=20 cooler is working. As you know the standard Mazda oil cooler sends = the oil=20 down to the end and back.  I was getting high oil temperatures = on one=20 of my (non thermocouple ) oil sensors, and wanted to verify that the = oil=20 cooler was working.

Bill Schertz
KIS = Cruiser=20 #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing

 

From: Ed Anderson

Sent:=20 Friday, May 14, 2010 5:32 PM

To: Rotary motors in aircraft =

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water = pump

 

Hi=20 Bill,

 

Had seen = your nice=20 data before, but one thing finally awoke in my old brain when I = looked at it=20 this time that I had not considered before.  We know that = parallel=20 cores give slightly better efficiency than a serial core set because = the=20 DT = decreases for the=20 second core in the series compared to both parallel cores having the = same=20 DT (at = least in=20 theory).  However, what jumped out at me this time was the real = significance of the parallel cores in cooling.  In this case, I = am=20 assuming no thermostat in the coolant flow.

 

If=20 I understood your graphs correctly, it looks like you are getting = around 20=20 gpm flow with a single core (so presumably you would get a bit less = with two=20 cores in series =96 but perhaps not significantly), but looks like = with=20 parallel cores you are getting around 32 gpm flow.  That is a = 20/32=20 =3D  approx 37 %  more mass coolant flow through the=20 engine.   That means (all else being equal), you should = transfer=20 37% more heat out of the engine per unit time with the parallel = cores=20 compared to the serial cores (assuming cores of same type and = size). =20

 

Now the = engine is=20 producing X amount of waste heat at Y HP that it needs to get rid = of. =20 That won=92t change for a given power setting Y.  So Q (waste = heat X)=20 produced by the  engine should be a constant at Y = Hp.

 

So=20 taking Q =3D M*Dt/Cp and = since Q=20 (waste heat)  =3D constant at power setting Y, then with M = (mass flow up=20 37%)  implies that in this case Dt =3D = (Temp of=20 coolant out of engine =96 temp of coolant into engine)  should = decrease=20 by 37%.  When you increase the mass flow and are removing the = same=20 quantity of heat, the DT is of = necessity a=20 lower value.

 

If=20 that is the case, then the question is  - does this mean the = temp of=20 coolant into the = engine=20 increases =96 not = necessarily=20 desirable, or does the Temp of coolant out of the engine decrease? Or a bit of = both?  I=20 suspect it=92s a bit of both depending on the radiator=92s = performance.  If=20 your radiators/air flow are the limiting factors, then transferring = more=20 heat per unit time to the radiators is not going to buy you = much.  The=20 reason is that if it is not able to get rid of the heat at the = faster rate=20 and the DT between the coolant and air will be less. =

 

But, my = guess is=20 that this theoretical increase in heat removal by using parallel = cores could=20 be useful in some situations =96 again if you are already limited in = the=20 airflow situation, then this won=92t make much difference.  It =  does=20 suggest that using parallel cores could result in the need for core = sizes=20 37% smaller.  OR did I miss something here?

 

 

 Like your=20 data in any case

 

Ed

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A=20 N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html<= /FONT>

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill = Schertz
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 = 10:39=20 AM
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Back in 2002 I = measured the flow=20 from a 13-B pump, attached to the engine but driven with an electric = motor.=20 The curve is attached. I ran the pump at 3 different RPM, = established by=20 changing the pulley size on the motor. At 5594 rpm, the pump = produced 19 psi=20 at zero flow, and 44 gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course = pumps=20 less.

 

The other test I did = was to=20 measure the flow through one core of the two I was using for my=20 installation. That is the curve going up to the right with the red = dots as=20 the experimental points. Since I am running my cores in parallel, = the right=20 hand rising curve is a 'calculated' flow response for the parallel=20 cores.

 

Finally, I hooked up = the cores=20 to the system, and pumped water through them. The single large point = represents where the flow and pressure came out, very close to the=20 calculated expected response.

 

All flow measurements = were done=20 by the "bucket and stop-watch" technique, with multiple runs to get = the=20 flow.

 

Bill Schertz
KIS = Cruiser=20 #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing

 

From: Al=20 Gietzen

Sent:=20 Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM

To: Rotary motors in aircraft =

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water = pump

 

Al,

Are you = sure of the=20 40 GPM?  That seems like a lot.  My radiator in/out is = 1.25=20 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per minute at = that flow=20 rate.  That is over 7 miles per hour!

 

Bill=20 B

When my = 20B (with=20 a 13B pump that Atkins referred to as =91high flow=92) was on the = dyno the=20 measured flow was 48 gpm with the standard pulleys.  I expect = the dyno=20 cooling loop was fairly low pressure drop compared to our typical = systems,=20 so I=92m just guessing 40 gpm is in the ballpark.  628 fpm = (10.5 ft/sec)=20 would not be considered very high - - above 15 ft/sec I=92d consider = high.

Al

 

------=_NextPart_000_0011_01CAF4F9.2A7C6570--