X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4954582 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:23:31 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.149; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [98.139.44.98] by nm22.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr 2011 20:22:54 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.86] by tm3.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr 2011 20:22:54 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Apr 2011 20:22:54 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 703972.93179.bm@omp1023.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 7632 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2011 20:22:54 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1303503774; bh=8bDzgQ4whXX+2SAiIz/M9UofkOINv50hgGF787P2WWY=; h=Received:X-Yahoo-SMTP:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=E0pyQUCQk3pJULD+JsZmCFR9eItWBKnKwJDuybou2/pLduejgtuL4N7p1N/L/fTimnrKumJ/CTWaMp/beNG+Je83wsqvD6+CTbVGBg7AtjTdHnHiR1rFJkfigy0SehthrOzfExI54SSA1yMSzXHk0T8Y/MM5CQb8DvLXcJOhOak= Received: from [192.168.10.8] (ceengland@98.95.182.36 with plain) by smtp108.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2011 13:22:53 -0700 PDT X-Yahoo-SMTP: uXJ_6LOswBCr8InijhYErvjWlJuRkoKPGNeiuu7PA.5wcGoy X-YMail-OSG: awjioPcVM1nMYcjn3T7azf6GMTVmSzP9RNnNIgdz5v5Yfmu IFknQTjwURqRoA1RQxAURLMzg81rICVqZcWYo0vA0UOBMDHTmfY8UZv7T9C8 iwsfF4Ya3mkYRQxzCx0J19YTDXFOopp7LiVF5dxy8dXG65lQWO484buromro BEoFCOVp.UlamoR4nA8whyfyTMI0TU2mTX0lpQPzhCdapiFGLAsOVhHel1CQ CqaJ_JDyoMxr.SkITl.12chjlOkkX3QCjiEIP9rG9ew1vJer3Qwfct1ZPEev 2bdcs6f7HUQQ.oPXG8z5CuEb6ujx0l2wvlG8KIOaWoy9OeNG6.dY- X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Message-ID: <4DB1E3A1.4060905@bellsouth.net> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:22:57 -0500 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030308030403050806030904" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030308030403050806030904 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is my thought (and intention), also, at least for a Renesis-based engine. Tracy seems to be making as much HP as anyone, & much more than most. And his efficiency is *much* better than anyone else is quoting; probably about as good as it's likely to get with a currently available rotary powerplant. It would be harder to get any easier & simpler than four straight tubes with bellmouths into a box with a throttle body. For me, at least, replacing that accessory housing is a whole 'nother level of difficulty. :-) Charlie On 4/22/2011 12:29 PM, Rino wrote: > 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 > [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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > 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 > --------------030308030403050806030904 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit That is my thought (and intention), also, at least for a Renesis-based engine. Tracy seems to be making as much HP as anyone, & much more than most. And his efficiency is *much* better than anyone else is quoting; probably about as good as it's likely to get with a currently available rotary powerplant. It would be harder to get any easier & simpler than four straight tubes with bellmouths into a box with a throttle body.

For me, at least, replacing that accessory housing is a whole 'nother level of difficulty. :-)

Charlie


On 4/22/2011 12:29 PM, Rino wrote:
If you want simplicity and effectivity, look at Tracy's intake manifold.
 
Rino Lacombe
 
 
----- Original Message -----
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 [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

 

 

 

--
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

--------------030308030403050806030904--