If Rhino is talking about the RV-4 ('RV Otter'), attached is a shot shamelessly copied from Tracy's web site:

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/images/Renesis/Shoebox_1_08_08_2004.JPG

More of Tracy's images here:

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/renesis_engine.htm

If I've understood Tracy correctly, the tubes now extend almost to the other side of the box, but the basic concept is 'dirt simple', with only tuning length an issue. Since the Renesis can't really benefit from the massive exhaust reverse-pulse into the intake that exists in the older 13B, this manifold concept looks really attractive to me.

Charlie

On 4/22/2011 1:37 PM, H & J Johnson wrote:

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

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html