X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from neutron.sasknet.sk.ca ([142.165.20.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4954511 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:37:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.180; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net Received: from pps.filterd (neutron [127.0.0.1]) by neutron.sasknet.sk.ca (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id p3MIXJB3026112 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:37:01 -0600 Received: from bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (bgmpOMR1.sasknet.sk.ca [142.165.72.22]) by neutron.sasknet.sk.ca with ESMTP id vuesa8k7s-1 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:37:01 -0600 Received: from sasktel.net ([192.168.234.97]) by bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca (SaskTel eMessaging Service) with ESMTP id <0LK2008FTH1P8XL0@bgmpomr1.sasknet.sk.ca> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:37:01 -0600 (CST) Received: from [192.168.234.24] (Forwarded-For: [216.197.211.104]) by cgmail1.sasknet.sk.ca (mshttpd); Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:37:01 -0600 Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 12:37:01 -0600 From: H & J Johnson Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Sun Java(tm) System Messenger Express 6.1 HotFix 0.20 (built Feb 27 2006) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-language: en Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline 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=2011-04-22_08:2011-04-22,2011-04-22,1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 suspectscore=2 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-1012030000 definitions=main-1104220119

Rhino are we talking the Rv8 intake or the Rv3?

Jarrett Johnson
www.innovention-tech.com

----- Original Message -----

From: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>

Date: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:29 am

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold

> If you want simplicity and effectivity, look at Tracy's intake
> manifold.
> Rino Lacombe
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: H & J Johnson
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> 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
> www.innovention-tech.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>
> 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 [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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>
> --
> 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