Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #54658
From: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:16:22 -0300
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
I have not seen the Rv8 manifold, I am talking about the Rv3.
 
Rino
----- Original Message -----
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
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
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster