X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-wy0-f180.google.com ([74.125.82.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4954815 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:50:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.125.82.180; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so710414wyj.25 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=yybNvlgjRReWortuENrsGBAKgtG9/2UgDMCLbhnj+uo=; b=gwQDEfF9oz5zKW9ZXacu8Bqq+8vRz/lSinaSLp+gKE3f9witWglx+hOIF+DqlwTB/K Q/1PgtOYNA5aIAUstHgNRJbvon44uOe4eRuyN0oaWH6cwqCcmsHDe1J3bSGfE6pttUqb BBUFwJEJ+7SYjDqzqwFXx1FaJpIxdYrkF9UfA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=AUDuE3NWt62bQ1LDv2JdXDNIOuTm67Ga3ImMoOdX1ZrH0OzgGwnkOfxKemZ8QapB3q Nu2/ruh2T+DgUa5PJI4QamGRzLgYwDL6yELqHgHCPf9EQQIfJrFoN4fUuCYxT6QP0ikP x4XIBdWawunbSSD/eTqASWAQrsw1+q7PXvZqk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.62.67 with SMTP id x45mr1172957wec.92.1303523364583; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.190.132 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2011 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:49:24 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold From: Tracy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce007221a520304a18c2fee --000e0ce007221a520304a18c2fee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Note that the intake runners could be changed and I eventually ended up with longer ones that extended almost all the way to the far side of the plenum box. My RV-8 manifold is almost identical to the one shown on the RV-4. Tracy On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Charlie England wrote: > 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 > *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 > > > --000e0ce007221a520304a18c2fee Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Note that the intake runners could be changed and I eventually ended up wit= h longer ones that extended almost all the way to the far side of the plenu= m box.

My RV-8 manifold is almost identical to the one shown on the = RV-4.

Tracy


On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 4:4= 7 PM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
=20 =20 =20
If Rhino is talking about the RV-4 ('RV Otter'), attached is a = shot shamelessly copied from Tracy's web site:
http://www.rotaryavi= ation.com/images/Renesis/Shoebox_1_08_08_2004.JPG

More of Tracy's images here:
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/renesis_eng= ine.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= 9;, 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.i= nnovention-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
>
>
>=A0 ----- Original Message -----
>=A0 From: H & J Johnson
>=A0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>=A0 Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 5:53 PM
>=A0 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of
> my new (2009) intake manifold
>
>
>=A0 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
>
>=A0 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
>
>=A0 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
>
>=A0 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.=A0 Of course I could be seeing
>
>=A0 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! :)
>
>
>
>=A0 Best regards
>
>=A0 Jarrett Johnson
>=A0 www.innovention-tech.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>
>=A0 Jarrett,
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 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.=A0
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 See the attached msg.
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 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.=A0 I assume all the early 13B intakes are the same???
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 Bill B
>
>=A0=A0
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>=A0 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [fly= rotary@lancaironline.net] On
> Behalf Of Dennis Havarlah
>=A0 Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:27 PM
>=A0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>=A0 Subject: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) > intake manifold
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 As some of you know I started flying my RV-7A with a cut - off
> Renesis intake manifold.=A0 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.= =A0 After
> using the new intake for over a year I am still very happy with
> it's performance.
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 I gained about 15 mph TAS at the same altitude and manifold pressure
>
>=A0 My static engine rpm increased 300 to 350 rpm.
>
>=A0 My takeoffs are faster and shorter with noticeable increase in
> acceleration
>=A0 My climb rate increased
>
>=A0 My oil and water cooling is more critical now because I make
> more HP.
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 But - I must confess I don't believe the manifold can be =
> reproduced economically.=A0 It's just too complicated.
>
>=A0 I also believe it should have slightly shorter intake runners to
> increase the performance at higher RPM.=A0 Decreasing the intake
> runner length probably would require complete new geometry of the
> system.
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 I have another concept for designing a Renesis intake that using
> a reflected wave from Rotor #1 returning to Rotor #1 .=A0=A0 >
>=A0 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.
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0 Dennis Haverlah
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0=A0
>
>=A0=A0
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>
>=A0 --
>=A0 Homepage:=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>=A0 Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/L= ist.html
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------
>
>
>=A0 --
>=A0 Homepage:=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
>=A0 Archive and UnSub:=A0=A0
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/L= ist.html 
--

Homepage:  http://w=
ww.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/f=
lyrotary/List.html


--000e0ce007221a520304a18c2fee--