|
Right... it is simple but I'm thinking there are people out there who maybe want a more streamlined solution [thats the hope anyway]
Also.. sorry about the miss-spell there Rino
Jarrett Johnson
www.innovention-tech.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Rino <lacombr@nbnet.nb.ca>
Date: Friday, April 22, 2011 6:16 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new (2009) intake manifold
> I have not seen the Rv8 manifold, I am talking about the Rv3.
>
> Rino
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: H & J Johnson
> To: Rotary motors in aircraft
> 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
|