X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from omta.toronto.rmgopenwave.com ([4.59.182.110] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4954774 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:17:51 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=4.59.182.110; envelope-from=lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca Received: from torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com ([142.167.173.137]) by tormtz04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20110423001715.YIK11202.tormtz04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com@torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com> for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:17:15 -0400 Received: from PCdeRita ([142.167.173.137]) by torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com with SMTP id <20110423001714.YMJA9918.torspm04.toronto.rmgopenwave.com@PCdeRita> for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:17:14 -0400 Message-ID: <5F52D5ECE4874432BBE7C3642FE267D7@PCdeRita> 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 21:16:22 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0052_01CC0132.87F5B080" 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=0001.0A020205.4DB21A8B.005F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0052_01CC0132.87F5B080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have not seen the Rv8 manifold, I am talking about the Rv3. Rino ----- Original Message -----=20 From: H & J Johnson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 3:37 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my = new (2009) intake manifold Rhino are we talking the Rv8 intake or the Rv3? Jarrett Johnson=20 www.innovention-tech.com=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Rino =20 Date: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:29 am=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my = new (2009) intake manifold=20 > If you want simplicity and effectivity, look at Tracy's intake=20 > manifold.=20 > Rino Lacombe=20 >=20 >=20 > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: H & J Johnson=20 > To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 > Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:53 PM=20 > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of=20 > my new (2009) intake manifold=20 >=20 >=20 > Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it=20 > was intended to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a=20 > close fitting 'over the top' manifold=20 >=20 > which would be usable for either pusher or tractor installs,=20 > however it would be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. It=20 > would take alot of 'study' and prep work to=20 >=20 > get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would=20 > need to be hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This=20 > is 'doable' but the added cost of getting=20 >=20 > all those parts together and into a working unit, would push the=20 > cost up past the 'reasonable' level. At least as far as i can tell=20 > from a your picture. Of course I could be seeing=20 >=20 > more complexity there than actually exists. However, that being=20 > said I'm open to all options and suggestions on how it could be=20 > made to work! :)=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > Best regards=20 >=20 > Jarrett Johnson=20 > www.innovention-tech.com=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------=20 > -----------=20 >=20 >=20 > Jarrett,=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > If you want to build an intake manifold, I suggest you build one=20 > that works well like the one Dennis came up with or if he has a=20 > better idea now, try it. =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > See the attached msg.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > I believe that you would have to build this for $500 or so to=20 > sell many and it would require at least 3 iterations, 13B,=20 > Renesis, and 20B. I assume all the early 13B intakes are the = same???=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Bill B=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------=20 > -----------=20 >=20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 > Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah=20 > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM=20 > To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 > Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009)=20 > intake manifold=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > As some of you know I started flying my RV-7A with a cut - off=20 > Renesis intake manifold. In 2009 I installed an new intake=20 > designed to route pressure waves from the closing of rotor #1's=20 > intake into rotor #2 just before rotor #2's intake closed. After=20 > using the new intake for over a year I am still very happy with=20 > it's performance.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude and manifold = pressure=20 >=20 > My static engine rpm increased 300 to 350 rpm.=20 >=20 > My takeoffs are faster and shorter with noticeable increase in=20 > acceleration=20 > My climb rate increased=20 >=20 > My oil and water cooling is more critical now because I make=20 > more HP.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can be=20 > reproduced economically. It's just too complicated.=20 >=20 > I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake runners to=20 > increase the performance at higher RPM. Decreasing the intake=20 > runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the=20 > system.=20 > =20 >=20 > I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using=20 > a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 . =20 >=20 > I believe it would be much easier to build and small enough to=20 > fit into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake works well=20 > I am not moving ahead with completing the design and building it.=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Dennis Haverlah=20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------=20 > -----------=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=20 > Archive and UnSub: =20 > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=20 >=20 >=20 > -------------------------------------------------------------------=20 > -----------=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/=20 > Archive and UnSub: =20 > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0052_01CC0132.87F5B080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have not seen the Rv8 manifold, I am = talking=20 about the Rv3.
 
Rino
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 H & J=20 Johnson
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 = 3:37=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: = [FlyRotary]=20 Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold

Rhino are we talking the Rv8 intake or the Rv3?

Jarrett = Johnson=20
www.innovention-tech.com=20

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>=20

Date: Friday, April 22, 2011 11:29 am=20

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved = performance of=20 my new (2009) intake manifold=20

> If you want simplicity and effectivity, look at Tracy's = intake=20
> manifold.
> Rino Lacombe
>
> =
> =20 ----- Original Message -----
>  From: H & J Johnson=20
>  To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>  Sent: = Thursday,=20 April 21, 2011 5:53 PM
>  Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: = [FlyRotary]=20 Improved performance of
> my new (2009) intake manifold =
>=20
>
>  Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I = can see=20 that it
> was intended to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning = more=20 towards a
> close fitting 'over the top' manifold
>=20
>  which would be usable for either pusher or tractor = installs,=20
> however it would be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. = It=20
> would take alot of 'study' and prep work to
> =
> =20 get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would =
> need=20 to be hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This
> = is=20 'doable' but the added cost of getting
>
>  all = those parts=20 together and into a working unit, would push the
> cost up past = the=20 'reasonable' level. At least as far as i can tell
> from a your = picture.  Of course I could be seeing
>
>  = more=20 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!=20 :)
>
>
>
>  Best regards
>=20
>  Jarrett Johnson
>  www.innovention-tech.com =
>
>
>
>
>
>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- =
>=20 -----------
>
>
>  Jarrett,
>=20
>  
>
>  If you want to build an = intake=20 manifold, I suggest you build one
> that works well like the = one Dennis=20 came up with or if he has a
> better idea now, try it.  =
>=20
>  
>
>  See the attached msg. =
>=20
>  
>
>  I believe that you would = have to=20 build this for $500 or so to
> sell many and it would require = at least=20 3 iterations, 13B,
> Renesis, and 20B.  I assume all the = early 13B=20 intakes are the same???
>
>  
> =
> =20 Bill B
>
>  
>
>
>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- =
>=20 -----------
>
>  From: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah=20
>  Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM =
>  To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
>  Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved = performance of my new (2009)
> intake manifold
>=20
>  
>
>  As some of you know I = started=20 flying my RV-7A with a cut - off
> Renesis intake = manifold.  In=20 2009 I installed an new intake
> designed to route pressure = waves from=20 the 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=20 still very happy with
> it's performance.
> =
>  =20
>
>  I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude = and=20 manifold pressure
>
>  My static engine rpm = increased 300=20 to 350 rpm.
>
>  My takeoffs are faster and shorter = with=20 noticeable increase in
> acceleration
>  My climb = rate=20 increased
>
>  My oil and water cooling is more = critical=20 now because I make
> more HP.
>
>   =
>=20
>  But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can = be=20
> reproduced economically.  It's just too complicated. =
>=20
>  I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake = runners=20 to
> increase the performance at higher RPM.  Decreasing = the=20 intake
> runner length probably would require complete new = geometry of=20 the
> system.
>  
>
>  I = have=20 another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using
> a = reflected=20 wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 .  
> =
> =20 I believe it would be much easier to build and small enough to =
> fit=20 into the James rotorary cowl but because my intake works well
> = I am=20 not moving ahead with completing the design and building it.
>=20
>  
>
>  Dennis Haverlah
>=20
>  
>
>  
>=20
>  
>
>
>
>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- =
>=20 -----------
>
>
>  --
>  = Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>  Archive and = UnSub:  =20
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =
>=20
>
>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- =
>=20 -----------
>
>
>  --
>  = Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>  Archive and = UnSub:  =20
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=20 

--

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

Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0052_01CC0132.87F5B080--