X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4954614 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:56:20 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=r4yJ8ACLDmU9N8MfnU6qGSvboKzSN9UnPAeXToqJDNE= c=1 sm=0 a=msmbqpRS5VMA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:17 a=upXHrtAQAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=s7pTz_yhIDEW7tC-hJIA:9 a=bbngJYHRH7vuJ2DcMaEA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=f0s5FU26TKIA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=ih0DxeLivvEtcIQi:21 a=t37DeepdDd8cH6j0:21 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=uhPMnebkAAAA:8 a=Ro2q7tNew5NrW03REQYA:9 a=IIL-xtNCdJ6A-mgfjUkA:7 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=Hs9J3SXIuHcA:10 a=t_oQBqazMlVJf--F:21 a=6O8HmTJ-p_iomUEy:21 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.167.5 Received: from [174.110.167.5] ([174.110.167.5:55210] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id D6/EE-09483-05BE1BD4; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:55:45 +0000 Message-ID: <1CFBE6CAAE7B45039A7EC3BCBE2A4920@EdPC> From: "Ed Anderson" 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 16:55:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0021_01CC010E.16680EF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CC010E.16680EF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Like all things in this "hobby" when you get something, you generally = give up something else. Tracy will be the first to tell you that his = new "log" type manifold gives him better top end power and speed, but = that he gave up some low end power and rate of climb with the Renesis in = the Rv-4.=20 Not to detract from his obviously well performing manifold, but - The = other thing to keep in mind is that Tracy is a "Lightness" fanatic = (well, perhaps too strong a descriptor - but, lets say INTENSELY focused = on making everything as light as possible), this translates into very = light aircraft with excellent weight/power ratio and low induced drag. =20 Whenever we fly in formation he is always running 1 1/2 - 2 gallons/hour = less burn rate. When we flew to Sun & Fun with Tracy in his Rv-8, he = maintained formation with the larger airframe with about 1 1/2 gallons = less fuel burn than I ran in my 2 rotor Rv-6A.. =20 Now that could just point out how heavy and draggy my aircraft is - but, = in my mind it clearly shows the importance of paying close attention to = weight. Tracy does not put anything FWF that he does not carefully = consider whether that is the lightest implementation he can come up with = - and it pays off. But, when you can achieve 3750 fpm rate of climb with that 3 rotor - = who cares if the intake is perhaps not optimized for rate of climb {:>) = Ed From: Charlie England=20 Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:22 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new = (2009) intake manifold 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:=20 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_0021_01CC010E.16680EF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Like all things in this "hobby" when you get = something,=20 you generally give up something else.  Tracy will be the first to = tell you=20 that his new "log" type manifold gives him better top end power and = speed, but=20 that he gave up some low end power and rate of climb with the Renesis in = the=20 Rv-4. 
 
Not to detract from his obviously well = performing=20 manifold, but -  The other thing to keep in mind is that Tracy is a = "Lightness" fanatic (well, perhaps too strong a descriptor - but, lets = say=20 INTENSELY focused on making everything as light as possible), this = translates=20 into very light aircraft with excellent weight/power ratio and low = induced=20 drag. 
 
Whenever we fly in formation he is always = running 1 1/2 -=20 2 gallons/hour less burn rate.  When we flew to Sun & Fun with = Tracy in=20 his Rv-8, he maintained formation with the larger airframe with about 1 = 1/2=20 gallons less fuel burn than I ran in my 2 rotor Rv-6A..  =
 
Now that could just point out how heavy and = draggy my=20 aircraft is - but, in my mind it clearly shows the importance of paying = close=20 attention to weight.  Tracy does not put anything FWF that he does = not=20 carefully consider whether that is the lightest implementation he can = come up=20 with - and it pays off.
 
But,  when you can achieve 3750 fpm rate of = climb=20 with that 3 rotor - who cares if the intake is perhaps not = optimized for=20 rate of climb {:>) 
 
Ed
 

Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 4:22 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved = performance of my=20 new (2009) intake manifold

That is my thought (and intention), also, at least for a=20 Renesis-based engine. Tracy seems to be making as much HP as anyone, = & much=20 more than most. And his efficiency is *much* better than anyone else is = quoting;=20 probably about as good as it's likely to get with a currently available = rotary=20 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,=20 at least, replacing that accessory housing is a whole 'nother level of=20 difficulty. :-)

Charlie


On 4/22/2011 12:29 PM, Rino = wrote:=20
If you want simplicity and = effectivity, look at=20 Tracy's intake manifold.
 
Rino Lacombe
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: H & J Johnson
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Sent: Thursday, April 21, = 2011 5:53=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW:=20 [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake = manifold

Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it = was=20 intended to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a close = fitting=20 'over the 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=20 be hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This is = 'doable' but=20 the 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=20 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=20 build an intake manifold, I suggest you build one that works well = like the=20 one 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@lancaironlin= e.net]=20 On Behalf Of Dennis=20 Havarlah
Sent: = Wednesday,=20 November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved = performance of my new (2009) intake=20 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=20 intake closed.  After using the new intake for over a year I am = still very happy with it's=20 performance.

 

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

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

My takeoffs are faster = and=20 shorter with noticeable increase in=20 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=20 complete 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=20 easier to build and small enough to fit into the James rotorary cowl = but=20 because my intake works well I am not moving ahead with completing = the=20 design and building it.

 

Dennis=20 Haverlah

 

 

 

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

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

------=_NextPart_000_0021_01CC010E.16680EF0--