X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omta3.toronto.rmgopenwave.com ([4.59.182.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4954439 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:31:20 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=4.59.182.101; envelope-from=lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca Received: from torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com ([142.167.173.137]) by tormtz03.toronto.rmgopenwave.com (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20110422173044.YCEB11523.tormtz03.toronto.rmgopenwave.com@torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com> for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:30:44 -0400 Received: from PCdeRita ([142.167.173.137]) by torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com with SMTP id <20110422173043.WCOB9918.torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com@PCdeRita> for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 13:30:43 -0400 Message-ID: From: "Rino" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:29:53 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0097_01CC00F9.BEBCC240" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6002.18197 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18417 X-Opwv-CommTouchExtSvcRefID: str=0001.0A020202.4DB1BB44.00D5,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CC00F9.BEBCC240 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable If you want simplicity and effectivity, look at Tracy's intake manifold. Rino Lacombe ----- Original Message -----=20 From: H & J Johnson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:53 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my = new (2009) intake manifold 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=20 www.innovention-tech.com=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Jarrett, =20 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. =20 =20 See the attached msg. =20 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??? =20 Bill B =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- 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 =20 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. =20 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. =20 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. =20 I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using a = reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 . =20 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. =20 Dennis Haverlah =20 =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CC00F9.BEBCC240 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
If you want simplicity and effectivity, = look at=20 Tracy's intake manifold.
 
Rino Lacombe
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 H & J=20 Johnson
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 = 5:53=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: = [FlyRotary]=20 Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold

Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it was = intended=20 to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a close fitting = 'over the=20 top' manifold

which would be usable for either pusher or tractor installs, = however it=20 would be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. It would take alot = of=20 'study' and prep work to

get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would = need to be=20 hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This is 'doable' but = the=20 added cost of getting

all those parts together and into a working unit, would push the = cost up=20 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=20 open to all options and suggestions on how it could be made to work! = :)

 

Best regards

Jarrett Johnson
www.innovention-tech.com=20

Jarrett,

 

If you want = to build=20 an intake manifold, I suggest you build one that works well like the = one=20 Dennis came up with or if he has a better idea now, try it. =20

 

See the = attached=20 msg.

 

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

 

Bill=20 B

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, = 2010 3:27=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved = performance=20 of my new (2009) intake manifold

 

As some of you know I = started=20 flying my RV-7A with a cut - off Renesis intake manifold.  In = 2009 I=20 installed an new intake designed to route pressure = waves from the=20 closing of rotor #1's intake into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's = intake=20 closed.  After using the new intake for over a year I am = still very=20 happy with it's performance.

 

I gained about 15 mph = TAS at the=20 same altitude and manifold pressure

My static engine rpm = increased 300=20 to 350 rpm.

My takeoffs are faster = and shorter=20 with noticeable increase in = acceleration

My climb rate=20 increased

My oil and water cooling = is more=20 critical now because I make more = HP.

 

But - I must confess I = don't=20 believe the manifold can be reproduced economically.  It's just = too=20 complicated.

I also believe it should = have=20 slightly shorter intake runners to increase the performance at higher=20 RPM.  Decreasing the intake runner length probably would require = complete=20 new geometry of the system.

 

I have another concept = for=20 designing a Renesis intake that using a reflected wave from Rotor = #1=20 returning to Rotor #1 .   =

I believe it would be = much easier=20 to build and small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl but = because my=20 intake works well I am not moving ahead with completing the design and = building it.

 

Dennis=20 Haverlah

 

 

 

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:  =20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0097_01CC00F9.BEBCC240--