X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm20-vm0.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com ([98.138.91.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with SMTP id 4600743 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 23:25:21 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.91.45; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.138.90.51] by nm20.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 04:24:44 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.246] by tm4.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 04:24:44 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1060.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 03 Dec 2010 04:24:44 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 921523.86642.bm@omp1060.mail.ne1.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 63382 invoked by uid 60001); 3 Dec 2010 04:24:44 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1291350284; bh=oNusVL68SKXIwdHGCufUEvPdDhp5cYhOBA8asEK7qI4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=wDExs8capiEFWLso4TtROsbd7pN/yGbqj+aIA6fFTCSDlgF5/2mxKs1pmkgInKaJNlGCQzM0lKN0PJ4LjbG5v5R6k7H0g3xtOQAfxYb1wkShCu+Dj5kwkS5+rrJumSK1DcqiBpz0YVxPK9OKwMOrLgttJoUY9SLQO/xnRdCg+Y8= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=vrcRCAHEtjBGzMsXFrOa3QJX8x9foxc8zVOTUZJfh0UANRQB0xR+408l0WALYwlAkiGDQKVxJG3S1QjNOLyFeBpdprZgqWrBNr5UDCuVOxcCRiSJBdKpz7kkkjFFjAFsLZnK4msOpmYUPV1/pH6TdNqHpiNTEoN41ATfqy0vdAA=; Message-ID: <503454.53201.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: 5dLjoq8VM1kKVh.g9hpqf_n2ta3QtghQuh2mqVMyO9dXJT. l5mmX7jMN_JvtRk.m2WGfcutM9aeJ3AfY1FDgPbyE1PIkEmyMthnF7PG3iJ1 9BoszHlqdvsS_nSREj2IhXrzmwRDJ9IsjjoxSkUAuSjBZomjGAWoJwL2BVzy bJw6HpqDl6xKOXgOXFWg6KOQZMTlpsxDTyNl3Ns1ASgDY84EoshCWcTUivtO gn6eaTpFhdms07cvAGELN4ibl8l8Cdh9jRfCYBW9Y9ISzlwVVXJeZ5.b039V 4lUBv7lt_nYnlXxttaA-- Received: from [208.114.38.107] by web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 02 Dec 2010 20:24:44 PST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/553 YahooMailWebService/0.8.107.285259 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:24:44 -0800 (PST) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP To: Rotary motors in aircraft MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-960902215-1291350284=:53201" --0-960902215-1291350284=:53201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill,=0A=A0=A0 Do you know approx weight of your total exhaust system inclu= ding the Spintech =0A??=0A=0A=0AI ask wondering how it would compare to my = proposed turbo system to get a =0Aballpark=0Aweight figure to see what weig= ht penalty I may have............=0A=0AThanks,=0A=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DE= LTA JD2" (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRA= L"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______= __________________________=0AFrom: Bill Schertz =0ATo= : Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Thu, Dece= mber 2, 2010 7:18:44 PM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design = for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calculations=0A=0A=0ANo, the = Spintech held up, Tracy had earlier used another automotive muffler that = =0Afailed quickly.=0A=0AI have a spintech on my plane, 39.8 hours in the ai= r and still holding up.=0A=0A=0ABill Schertz=0AKIS Cruiser #4045=0AN343BS= =0APhase I testing=0A=0AFrom: bktrub@aol.com =0ASent: Thursday, December 02= , 2010 1:14 PM=0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calcu= lations=0ATracy used one and it blew out like a cheap tire, IIRC. It's got = sharp corners, =0Awhich don't hold up to heat and stress very well.=0A=0ABr= ian Trubee=0A=0A=0A=0A=A0=0A=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: Mark S= teitle =0ATo: Rotary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 11:00 am=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re:= Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0AModified header Calc= ulations=0A=0A=0AI looked at the Spin Tech site and those look to be a very= robust design... used =0Aby many serious racing types.=A0 I may try one (s= ome day in the future).=A0=A0 =0A=0A=0AMark=0A=0A=0AOn Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at = 11:40 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:=0A=0AAll I can rea= lly tell you it combined the most sound deading with the least =0Arestricti= on of any of the muffler designs I tried - which really doesn't =0Anecessar= ily prove anything.=A0 I guess what you could do is calculate the open =0Aa= rea of the disc and compare it to the area of the Exhaust port - if as =0Al= arge/larger in area then not necessarily a lot of restriction to gas flow.= =0A>=A0=0A>SpinTech was the first reactive muffler Tracy used.=0A>=A0=0A>Ed= =0A>=0A>=0A>From: Mark Steitle =0A>Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:23 = PM=0A>To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive M= uffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: =0A>Modified header Calculations= =0A>=0A>Ed,=A0 =0A>=0A>It sounds like it might work, but also appears to be= very restrictive.=A0 Did you =0A>make any measurements regarding flow rest= riction?=A0 Maybe a larger diameter main =0A>body would alleviate the back = pressure to an acceptable level, maybe not.=A0 I =0A>would want to run some= tests first.=0A>=0A>What do you make of this site?=A0 =0A>http://en.wikibo= oks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Filter_Design_and_Implementation=0A>I think we can p= retty much rule out "absorptive" type mufflers for our =0A>purposes.=A0 Was= n't Tracy's early muffler a "reactive" type (Hushpower)?=A0 As I =0A>recall= it was heavy, but it worked very well.=0A>=0A>Mark=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>On T= hu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ed Anderson wrote:= =0A>=0A>I agree, Finn.=A0 It probably would=A0 not take much, but I just go= t to the point I =0A>was tired of messing with it and put on the HushPower = II.=A0 I always felt I was =0A>just one more step away from making it succe= ssful - but did not take it.=A0 Just =0A>too leery of learning to weld with= only one good eye ball left {:>)=0A>>=A0=0A>>The 5/8" SS threaded shaft ra= n through the middle of the tube/discs with a jam =0A>>nut on each side of = each disc.=A0 The shaft/rod was not anchored otherwise.=A0 =0A>>However, I = did have a squished "Fishtail" end so that the last disc could not =0A>>bac= k out of the tube.=0A>>=A0=0A>>Ed=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>From: Finn Lassen =0A>>Sent= : Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:45 AM=0A>>To: Rotary motors in aircraft = =0A>>Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary= ] Re: =0A>>Modified header Calculations=0A>>=0A>>Hi Ed,=0A>>=0A>>Not that I= 'm going to jump on this right away, but it seems that it would be =0A>>rel= atively easy to rosette weld the tips of the discs. Drill 1/8" (or slightly= =0A>>bigger) holes through the tube at the center of each disc tip.=0A>>= =0A>>But, how did you secure the 5/8" shaft itself?=0A>>=0A>>Finn=0A>>=0A>>= On 12/1/2010 5:45 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: =0A>>Mark, =0A>>>=0A>>>Since you h= ave not gotten to the muffler part of your design, here are some =0A>>>thou= ghts (Yes, I did do 6 muffler experiments - don't ask me why)=0A>>>=0A>>>Th= e one design that was "almost" totally successful in achieving my goals is = =0A>>>attached.=A0 Hard to make out the details, but enough to give you the= general =0A>>>ideal.=0A>>>=0A>>>My objective was trying to decided how to = muffler the shock wave (which creates =0A>>>most of the ear problems) but l= et the exhaust gas flow freely.=A0 My conclusion =0A>>>was that reactive de= sign muffler was the only acceptable choice given our =0A>>>constraints.=0A= >>>=0A>>>What I came up with was the idea of stuffing (I=A0 put five but I = think three =0A>>>would make a considerable difference) disc with outer par= ts cut into blades and =0A>>>bent at a 45 deg angle into a tube.=A0 Looked = a bit like an old farm windmill.=0A>>>=0A>>>=A0 The idea behind this approa= ch was if you looked head on at the fan-disc - you =0A>>>see basically a so= lid metal front.=A0 That is what the shock wave would see and =0A>>>most (a= lot?) of the energy would be reflected back toward the engine (actually = =0A>>>to the next disc in the tube).=A0 The bent blades on the other hand w= ould permit =0A>>>exhaust gas to flow with minimum restriction.=0A>>>=0A>>>= It really did deaden the sound where folks could stand by the wing tip with= no =0A>>>problem hearing someone else talk. I was thrilled.=A0 It also met= =A0 my minimum =0A>>>restriction as I could still get my 6000 rpm static.= =0A>>>=0A>>>Ok, what went wrong - well, not being a welder I resorted to ot= her methods - =0A>>>which ultimately failed. =0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>Two things o= ccurred - =0A>>>=0A>>>one if the disc broke loose of the small 5/8" thread = SS shaft from the Jam nuts =0A>>>on each side holding the disc, well, the d= isc could (and did) begin to spin =0A>>>inside the tube like the turbine wh= eel of a jet engine. This windmilling effect =0A>>>acted just like a windmi= lling prop on the exhaust gas and definitely impeded gas =0A>>>flow.=A0 So = can not permit the disc to spin (the tips polished the inside of the =0A>>>= tube where the spun)=0A>>>=0A>>>Second because I donot weld, I did not secu= re the tips of the blades of the disc =0A>>>to the sides of the tube.=A0 We= ll the shock wave naturally causes those blades to =0A>>>flex and eventuall= y break off.=0A>>>=0A>>>The SS disc were 2" in diam 1/8 thick and fit reall= y nice inside the 2 1/4" =0A>>>tubes.=A0 I cut slots in the outer part of t= he SS disc and then used pliers to =0A>>>bend the tabs to an approx 45 deg = angle (see attached Jep).=0A>>>=0A>>>So none of this was difficult to fabri= cate (tedious perhaps but not =0A>difficult).=0A>>>=0A>>>I gave up on it be= cause without welding skills I could not figure out away to =0A>>>secure th= e tips of the blades to the tube to give them better support.=A0 Perhaps = =0A>>>better than disc would have been cones but couldn't find any {:>).=0A= >>>=0A>>>So since I couldn't see any way around my lack of welding (and too= cheap to hire =0A>>>someone), I went=A0 the hushpower II route.=0A>>>=0A>>= >Just thought I would throw some fuel on your fire {:>)=0A>>>=0A>>>FWIW=0A>= >>=0A>>>Ed=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>>>=0A>=0A>=0A --0-960902215-1291350284=:53201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
=0A
Bill,
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
&= nbsp;  Do you know approx weight of your total exhaust system includin= g the Spintech ??
=0A
 
=0A
I ask wondering how = it would compare to my proposed turbo system to get a ballpark
=0Aweight figure to see what weight penalty I may have............
=0A 
=0A
Thanks,
=0A
 
=0A

Kelly Troyer<= BR>"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventuall= y)

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"= MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A<= DIV>
=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: Bill Schertz = <wschertz@comcast.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
<= B>Sent: Thu, December 2, 2010 = 7:18:44 PM
Subject: [Fly= Rotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified hea= der Calculations

=0A
=0A
=0A
No, the Spintech held= up, Tracy had earlier used another automotive muffler that failed quickly.=
=0A
 
=0A
I have a spintech on my plane, 39.8 hours= in the air and still holding up.
=0A
 
=0A
 =0A
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing
=0A= =0A
=0A
 
=0A
=0A=0A
Sent: Thursday, Decembe= r 02, 2010 1:14 PM
=0A=0A
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Des= ign for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header Calculations
=0A
 
=0A
=0A
Tracy used one and it blew out like a cheap tire, IIRC. It's got s= harp corners, which don't hold up to heat and stress very well.
=0A 
=0A
Brian Trubee
=0A
 
=0A

 
=0A


=0A
-----Original = Message-----
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary= motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, Dec 2= , 2010 11:00 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP = was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header Calculations

=0A
I looked at the Spin Tech site = and those look to be a very robust design... used by many serious racing ty= pes.  I may try one (some day in the future).   =0A
&nbs= p;
=0A
Mark

=0A
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010= at 11:40 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
=0A=0A
=0A
All I can= really tell you it combined the most sound deading with the least restrict= ion of any of the muffler designs I tried - which really doesn't necessaril= y prove anything.  I guess what you could do is calculate the open are= a of the disc and compare it to the area of the Exhaust port - if as large/= larger in area then not necessarily a lot of restriction to gas flow.
=0A
 
=0A
SpinTech was the first reactive muffler Tracy used.
=0A 
=0A
Ed
=0A
=0A
 
=0A
=0A=0A
Sent: = Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:23 PM
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was= [FlyRotary] Re: Modified header Calculations
= =0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
 
Ed,  =0A<= DIV> 
=0A
It sounds like it might work, but also appears to b= e very restrictive.  Did you make any measurements regarding flow rest= riction?  Maybe a larger diameter main body would alleviate the back p= ressure to an acceptable level, maybe not.  I would want to run some t= ests first.
=0A
 
=0A
What do you make of this site?=   http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Acoustics/Filter_Design_and_Implementat= ion
=0A
I think we can pretty much rule out "absorptive" type muff= lers for our purposes.  Wasn't Tracy's early muffler a "reactive" type= (Hushpower)?  As I recall it was heavy, but it worked very well.=0A
 
=0A
Mark

=0A
=0A
 
= =0A
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@c= arolina.rr.com> wrote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
I agree, Finn.  It probably woul= d  not take much, but I just got to the point I was tired of messing w= ith it and put on the HushPower II.  I always felt I was just one more= step away from making it successful - but did not take it.  Just too = leery of learning to weld with only one good eye ball left {:>)=0A
 
=0A
The 5/8" SS threaded shaft ran through the middle of the tube/discs with = a jam nut on each side of each disc.  The shaft/rod was not anchored o= therwise.  However, I did have a squished "Fishtail" end so that the l= ast disc could not back out of the tube.
=0A
 
=0A
Ed
=0A
=0A
 
=0A
=0A=0A
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 10:45 AM=0A=0A
Subject: [FlyR= otary] Re: Reactive Muffler Design for PP was [FlyRotary] Re: Modified head= er Calculations
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
&nbs= p;
Hi Ed,

Not that I'm going to jump on this right away, but it= seems that it would be relatively easy to rosette weld the tips of the dis= cs. Drill 1/8" (or slightly bigger) holes through the tube at the center of= each disc tip.

But, how did you secure the 5/8" shaft itself?
Finn

On 12/1/2010 5:45 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: =0A
=0A
Mark,
=0A
 =0A
Since you have not gotten to the muffler part o= f your design, here are some thoughts (Yes, I did do 6 muffler experiments = - don't ask me why)
=0A
 
=0A
The one design that was "almost" totally successful in achieving my goa= ls is attached.  Hard to make out the details, but enough to give you = the general ideal.
=0A
 
=0A
My objective was trying to decided how to muffler the shock wave (which = creates most of the ear problems) but let the exhaust gas flow freely. = ; My conclusion was that reactive design muffler was the only acceptable ch= oice given our constraints.
=0A
 
=0A
What I came up with was the idea of stuffing (I  put five = but I think three would make a considerable difference) disc with outer par= ts cut into blades and bent at a 45 deg angle into a tube.  Looked a b= it like an old farm windmill.
=0A
 
=0A
  The idea behind this approach was if you looked head o= n at the fan-disc - you see basically a solid metal front.  That is wh= at the shock wave would see and most (a lot?) of the energy would be reflec= ted back toward the engine (actually to the next disc in the tube).  T= he bent blades on the other hand would permit exhaust gas to flow with mini= mum restriction.
=0A
 
=0A
It really did deaden the sound where folks could stand by the wing tip wit= h no problem hearing someone else talk. I was thrilled.  It also met&n= bsp; my minimum restriction as I could still get my 6000 rpm static.=
=0A
 
=0A
Ok, what went wrong - = well, not being a welder I resorted to other methods - which ultimately fai= led.
=0A
 
=0A
Two things= occurred -
=0A
 
=0A
one= if the disc broke loose of the small 5/8" thread SS shaft from the Jam nut= s on each side holding the disc, well, the disc could (and did) begin to sp= in inside the tube like the turbine wheel of a jet engine. This windmilling= effect acted just like a windmilling prop on the exhaust gas and definitel= y impeded gas flow.  So can not permit the disc to spin (the tips poli= shed the inside of the tube where the spun)
=0A
 =0A
Second because I donot weld, I did not secure t= he tips of the blades of the disc to the sides of the tube.  Well the = shock wave naturally causes those blades to flex and eventually break off.<= /FONT>
=0A
 
=0A
The SS disc were= 2" in diam 1/8 thick and fit really nice inside the 2 1/4" tubes.  I = cut slots in the outer part of the SS disc and then used pliers to bend the= tabs to an approx 45 deg angle (see attached Jep).
=0A
&nb= sp;
=0A
So none of this was difficult to fabric= ate (tedious perhaps but not difficult).
=0A
 
= =0A
I gave up on it because without welding skills I= could not figure out away to secure the tips of the blades to the tube to = give them better support.  Perhaps better than disc would have been co= nes but couldn't find any {:>).
=0A
 
=0A
= So since I couldn't see any way around my lack of weldin= g (and too cheap to hire someone), I went  the hushpower II route.
=0A
 
=0A
Just thought I woul= d throw some fuel on your fire {:>)
=0A
 
=0A<= DIV>FWIW
=0A
 
=0A
Ed
=0A
=0A
&nbs= p;
=0A
 

=0A
 
=0A
 
--0-960902215-1291350284=:53201--