X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from gluon.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.181] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4953565 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:53:37 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.181; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from pps.filterd (gluon [127.0.0.1]) by gluon.sasknet.sk.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id p3LKmFkA011212 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:00 -0600 Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (bgmpOMR1.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.72.22]) by gluon.sasknet.sk.ca with ESMTP id vtuqx8mr7-1 for ; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:00 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0LK000GWKSOCS7S0@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:00 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.25] (Forwarded-For: [24.89.93.210]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:00 -0600 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 14:53:00 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <4160678f4d2d.4db044cc@sasktel.net> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Boundary_(ID_03t23F/ZszZeVy3nL9LipQ)" Content-language: en X-Accept-Language: en Priority: normal X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.2.15,1.0.148,0.0.0000 definitions=2011-04-21_05:2011-04-21,2011-04-21,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-1012030000 definitions=main-1104210130 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_03t23F/ZszZeVy3nL9LipQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline

Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it was intended to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a close fitting 'over the top' manifold

which would be usable for either pusher or tractor installs, however it would be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. It would take alot of 'study' and prep work to

get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would need to be hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This is 'doable' but the added cost of getting

all those parts together and into a working unit, would push the cost up past the 'reasonable' level. At least as far as i can tell from a your picture.  Of course I could be seeing

more complexity there than actually exists. However, that being said I'm open to all options and suggestions on how it could be made to work! :)

 

Best regards

Jarrett Johnson
www.innovention-tech.com

--Boundary_(ID_03t23F/ZszZeVy3nL9LipQ) Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_lFaacfnv93+hCyT5drvDWQ)" --Boundary_(ID_lFaacfnv93+hCyT5drvDWQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Jarrett, If you want to build an intake manifold, I suggest you build one that works well like the one Dennis came up with or if he has a better idea now, try it. See the attached msg. I believe that you would have to build this for $500 or so to sell many and it would require at least 3 iterations, 13B, Renesis, and 20B. I assume all the early 13B intakes are the same??? Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold As some of you know I started flying my RV-7A with a cut - off Renesis intake manifold. In 2009 I installed an new intake designed to route pressure waves from the closing of rotor #1's intake into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed. After using the new intake for over a year I am still very happy with it's performance. I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude and manifold pressure My static engine rpm increased 300 to 350 rpm. My takeoffs are faster and shorter with noticeable increase in acceleration My climb rate increased My oil and water cooling is more critical now because I make more HP. But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can be reproduced economically. It's just too complicated. I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake runners to increase the performance at higher RPM. Decreasing the intake runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the system. I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 . I believe it would be much easier to build and small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake works well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and building it. Dennis Haverlah --Boundary_(ID_lFaacfnv93+hCyT5drvDWQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Jarrett,

 

If you want to build an intake manifold, I suggest you build one that works well like the one Dennis came up with or if he has a better idea now, try it. 

 

See the attached msg.

 

I believe that you would have to build this for $500 or so to sell many and it would require at least 3 iterations, 13B, Renesis, and 20B.  I assume all the early 13B intakes are the same???

 

Bill B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold

 

As some of you know I started flying my RV-7A with a cut - off Renesis intake manifold.  In 2009 I installed an new intake designed to route pressure waves from the closing of rotor #1's intake into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed.  After using the new intake for over a year I am still very happy with it's performance.

 

I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude and manifold pressure

My static engine rpm increased 300 to 350 rpm.

My takeoffs are faster and shorter with noticeable increase in acceleration

My climb rate increased

My oil and water cooling is more critical now because I make more HP.

 

But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can be reproduced economically.  It's just too complicated.

I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake runners to increase the performance at higher RPM.  Decreasing the intake runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the system.

 

I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 .  

I believe it would be much easier to build and small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake works well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and building it.

 

Dennis Haverlah

 

 

 

--Boundary_(ID_lFaacfnv93+hCyT5drvDWQ)-- --Boundary_(ID_03t23F/ZszZeVy3nL9LipQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html --Boundary_(ID_03t23F/ZszZeVy3nL9LipQ)--