X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-oa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.219.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.7) with ESMTPS id 6511138 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 06:21:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.43; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by mail-oa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id i3so2292092oag.30 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:20:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:content-type:in-reply-to:message-id:date:to :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5f3gIma+yoD1jE1+wa/MzqWwPHdy/l7rfDvg1JjQs6U=; b=msE0lYte27bR1DE1BQBT2oYdzJlNhSm5W+987KmGJaV+rfJS3i+jGqqoN63fgWMVh8 m+stmDm0GHD0kC8b8mSqKoPATqg83XQO8ohClXP0+xKR1efWzw2S82n9oOOrJNyg0JU3 kFjL7lYXTvnlkJDJAdLYeZW5oO2P+Ad8Gviqje0KInfsz3l6BisvxI8IbyIYWrOGzjUE VCdfMDmFQf6iEMpCta7OIjZhZBZ/zpvohbWEfWUMRugYB6LB1LyxTWHkX7lnD9TdEOCI x6v9JKlKBUD0BNQXQB4VlHYxEpLHGaA6lFF6Kj6hij0rDn05Q/cPaaUF3CGDBe9npcJ1 1Cgw== X-Received: by 10.60.44.193 with SMTP id g1mr1119632oem.47.1381486854594; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:20:54 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.1.104] (cpe-173-172-120-114.austin.res.rr.com. [173.172.120.114]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id d8sm94251737oeu.6.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 03:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency References: From: Mark Steitle Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-45128502-9CB5-4F53-A040-2CA86FDA918C X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11A501) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 05:20:51 -0500 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-45128502-9CB5-4F53-A040-2CA86FDA918C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's much too late for that now. Guess I will have to settle on the data fr= om other sources when it comes to the hp figures for the p-port engines unti= l I have the opportunity to dyno it.=20 My original goal was to be able to cruise at 200 mph, which the side port en= gine couldn't quite do. The p-port engine hits 200 with ease. Life is good= ! Mark Sent from my iPad > On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" wr= ote: >=20 > Mark, > If you happened to record your climb rate and weight with the old configur= ation, you could duplicate a climb rate at the same weight with the new conf= iguration, then using that formula and plugging in the difference in climb r= ate, you could get pretty darn close to the increase in HP due to the new co= nfiguration. > =20 > Bill B > =20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Be= half Of Mark Steitle > Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2013 2:24 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency > =20 > Bill, > =20 > Sounds pretty much like what I've done with my 3-rotor. My initial side-p= ort 20b with MT 3-blade electric prop, WOT with prop set to 1700, resulted i= n a TAS of 159 kts. The new p-port engine would true out at 183 kts with th= e same settings. I guess I could calculate the added hp if I knew the flat p= late area of the airframe. But I'm happy just to be going faster than I was= before the upgrade.=20 > =20 > My point with the HP calculation was that if we're going to come up with a= horsepower number, it won't be long and someone will compare those HP numbe= rs to a Lycoming of some configuration. While I'm pretty sure that Lycoming= doesn't test their engines with a water pump connected, I was wondering if t= hey include an alternator, air cleaner, stock exhaust, etc. in the calculati= on? And what other "tricks" do they use to get to their magic HP numbers? = =20 > =20 > Mark > =20 >=20 > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Bill Bradburry w= rote: > Mark, > =20 > I think I may be trying to determine =E2=80=9CSAE Kentucky Windage HP=E2=80= =9D! :>) > =20 > To do this test I would have to estimate the exact weight of the plane at t= he time of the test, estimate the density altitude and all the things that g= o into figuring it out, estimate what the climb rate really was, estimate wh= at the descent rate really was, estimate prop efficiency, estimate the PSRU l= osses, etc=E2=80=A6the only =E2=80=9Cknown=E2=80=9D number I would be workin= g with in the calculation is the number 33000. > =20 > I have been telling myself, =E2=80=9CSelf! I don=E2=80=99t think my engine= is really hairy chested like I wanted it to be!=E2=80=9D > =20 > I plan to get an estimated descent rate and climb rate, run it thru this c= alculation and see if I still feel this way. :>) > =20 > If it turns out to be accurate, I plan to stay away from dark clouds due t= o fear of being struck by lightening! :>) > =20 > Bill B > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Be= half Of Mark Steitle > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 8:24 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency > =20 > Bill,=20 > =20 > I was getting at a defined standard so that your numbers could be compared= to a certified a/c engine. Wikipedia defines SAE hp, depending on the conf= iguration of the engine being tested, as follows: > =20 > SAE gross power[edit] > Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised the= ir engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross ho= rsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SA= Estandards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SA= E gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with fe= w belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers i= n lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards fo= r barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively i= dealistic. >=20 > SAE net power[edit] > In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automak= ers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE s= tandard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net h= p is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transm= ission losses. However, the SAE net power testing protocol calls for standar= d production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, e= xhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings i= n closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually c= onfigured and sold. >=20 > SAE certified power[edit] > In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[20] This= test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a ce= rtification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allowed= to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending= on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test= must follow the SAE standard in question, take place in an ISO9000/9002 cer= tified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third party. >=20 > =20 >=20 > So, if I understand you correctly, you are looking to determine "SAE Net H= P", which is measured at the flywheel, and includes air filter, accessories,= stock exhaust, etc. Without these "additions", you would be talking "SAE G= ross HP". =20 >=20 > =20 >=20 > Mark >=20 > =20 >=20 > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bill Bradburry w= rote: > Based on the below statement, where would Tracy=E2=80=99s planet gear syst= em fall? > =20 > PSRUs have losses inherent in their gearsets or belts. Lay people have oft= en speculated that these losses are up to 40 hp in the case of a 200 hp clas= s drive. This is absurd as it would represent about 30,000 watts being dissi= pated as heat. If this was in fact true, the case or belts would melt in jus= t a few minutes. Typical losses for single mesh spur and helical gears is ar= ound 2-2.5%. HTD belts run at 3-4%. Twin mesh helical gearsets would then ha= ve perhaps a 6% loss as worst case including bearing losses. >=20 > The statement came from: > =20 > http://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm > =20 > B2 > =20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Be= half Of Bill Bradburry > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 3:42 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency > =20 > Mark, > =20 > They would be included if the engine was tested on a dyno, so I consider t= hem to be part of the engine. But not so the PSRU if measuring from the fly= wheel. > =20 > Ernest, > =20 > I don=E2=80=99t know what you mean by .98 to .99?? Certainly you don=E2=80= =99t think it would only be a loss of 1 or 2%!?? It would have to be in the= range of 10 to 20 HP or even greater. That is 5 to 10% in our HP range. J= ust the loss due to prop efficiency is in the range of 30 HP! > =20 > Bill > =20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Be= half Of Mark Steitle > Sent: Monday, October 07, 2013 1:26 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop and PSRU efficiency > =20 > Bill, > =20 > While you're at it don't forget to account for the water pump and alternat= or(s). > =20 > Mark S. > =20 >=20 > On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: > I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has hazarded a > guess. >=20 > How much HP is lost from our engines due to the PSRU? I have been > interested in determining what the HP output of my engine is and that info= > would be needed for that estimation. >=20 > They tell me that most props are about 80-85% efficient, so to calculate t= he > hp, you take the difference between your climb rate and your glide descent= > rate at the same airspeed, multiplied by the weight, and then divided by > 33000. >=20 > Wt * V / 33000 =3D HP >=20 > This would be the prop HP, so to get the prop flange HP, you would divide b= y > the prop efficiency, between .8 and .85. >=20 > To get the engine flywheel HP, you would have to add something for the los= s > of the PSRU. >=20 > Is anyone willing to take a shot at that number?? Third or forth chance! > :>) >=20 > Bill B >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List= .html > =20 > =20 > =20 --Apple-Mail-45128502-9CB5-4F53-A040-2CA86FDA918C Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's much too late for that now.  = ;Guess I will have to settle on the data from other sources when it comes to= the hp figures for the p-port engines until I have the opportunity to dyno i= t. 

My original goal was to be able to cruise a= t 200 mph, which the side port engine couldn't quite do.  The p-port en= gine hits 200 with ease.  Life is good!

Mark
Sent from my iPad

On Oct 8, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Bill Brad= burry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.= net> wrote:

=

Mark,

If you happened to record your climb ra= te and weight with the old configuration, you could duplicate a climb rate at t= he same weight with the new configuration, then using that formula and plugging= in the difference in climb rate, you could get pretty darn close to the increas= e in HP due to the new configuration.

 

Bill B

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironli= ne.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 20= 13 2:24 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop= and PSRU efficiency

 

Bill,

 

Sounds pretty much like what I've done with my 3-rotor.  My initial side-port 20b with MT 3-blade electric prop, WOT with prop set to 17= 00, resulted in a TAS of 159 kts.  The new p-port engine would true out at 1= 83 kts with the same settings.  I guess I could calculate the added hp if I= knew the flat plate area of the airframe.  But I'm happy just to b= e going faster than I was before the upgrade.  <= /p>

 

My point with the HP calculation was that if we're going to come up with a horsepower number, it won't be long and someone will compare tho= se HP numbers to a Lycoming of some configuration.  While I'm pretty sur= e that Lycoming doesn't test their engines with a water pump connected, I was wondering if they include an alternator, air cleaner, stock exhaus= t, etc. in the calculation?  And what other "tricks" do they use to get to their magic HP numbers?   

 

Mark

 <= /font>

On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Mark,

 

I think I may be trying to determine =E2=80=9CSAE Kentucky Winda= ge HP=E2=80=9D!  :>)

 

To do this test I would have to estimate the exact weight of the= plane at the time of the test, estimate the density altitude and all the thi= ngs that go into figuring it out, estimate what the climb rate really was, estim= ate what the descent rate really was, estimate prop efficiency, estimate the PSR= U losses, etc=E2=80=A6the only =E2=80=9Cknown=E2=80=9D number I would be worki= ng with in the calculation is the number 33000.

 

I have been telling myself, =E2=80=9CSelf! I don=E2=80=99t think= my engine is really hairy chested like I wanted it to be!=E2=80=9D

 

I plan to get an estimated descent rate and climb rate, run it t= hru this calculation and see if I still feel this way.  :>)

 

If it turns out to be accurate, I plan to stay away from dark clouds due to fear of being struck by lightening!  :>)=

 

Bill B

From: Rotary motors in air= craft [mailto:fly= rotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
= Sent: Monday, October 07, 201= 3 8:24 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop= and PSRU efficiency

 

Bill, 

 

I was getting at a defined standard so that your numbers could be compared to a certified a/c engine.  Wikipedia defines SAE hp, depending on the configuration of th= e engine being tested, as follows:

 

SAE gross power[edit]

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engin= es in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAEstanda= rds J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube test headers in lieu of the <= span style=3D"color:#0B0080;text-decoration:none">OEM = ;exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.

SAE net power[edit]

In the Unit= ed States, the term bhp fell i= nto disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake= horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and= so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net power testing= protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produc= ed by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

SAE certified power[edit]

In 2005, the SAE introduced "SAE Certified Power" with SAE J2723.[20]=  This test is voluntary and is in itself not a separate engine test code but a certification of either J1349 or J1995 after which the manufacturer is allow= ed to advertise "Certified to SAE J1349" or "Certified to SAE J1995" depending on which test standard have been followed. To attain certification the test must follow the SAE standard in question, take place i= n an ISO9000/9002 certified facility and be witnessed by an SAE approved third= party.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you are looking to determine "SAE Net HP", which is measured at the flywheel, and includes air filter, accessories, stock exhaust, etc.  Without these "additions", you would be talking "SAE Gross HP".  

 

Mark

 

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburr= y@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Based on the below statement, where would = Tracy=E2=80=99s planet gear sy= stem fall?

 

PSRUs have losses inherent in their gearsets or belts. Lay people have often speculated that these losses are up to 40 hp in the case of a 200 hp class drive. This is absurd as it would represent about 30,000 watts being dissipa= ted as heat. If this was in fact true, the case or belts would melt in just a fe= w minutes. Typical losses for single mesh spur and helical gears is around 2-2.5%. HTD belts run at 3-4%. Twin mesh helical gearsets would then have perhaps a 6% loss as worst case including bearing losses.<= /font>

The statement came from:

 

ht= tp://www.sdsefi.com/air51.htm

 

B2

 

From: Rotary motors in air= craft [mailto:fly= rotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Bradburry Sent: Monday, October 07, 201= 3 3:42 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop= and PSRU efficiency

 

Mark,

 

They would be included if the engine was tested on a dyno, so I consider them to be part of the engine.  But not so the PSRU if measuri= ng from the flywheel.

 

Ernest,

 

I don=E2=80=99t know what you mean by .98 to .99??  Certain= ly you don=E2=80=99t think it would only be a loss of 1 or 2%!??  It would hav= e to be in the range of 10 to 20 HP or even greater.  That is 5 to 10% in our HP range.  Just the loss due to prop efficiency is in the range of 30 HP!<= /span>

 

Bill

 

From: Rotary motors in air= craft [mailto:fly= rotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
= Sent: Monday, October 07, 201= 3 1:26 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Prop= and PSRU efficiency

 

Bill,

 

While you're at it don't forget to account for the water pump and alternator(s).

 

Mark S.

 

On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Bill Bradburry <bbradbur= ry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I have asked this question a couple of times and no one has hazarded a
guess.

How much HP is lost from our engines due to the PSRU?  I have been
interested in determining what the HP output of my engine is and that info would be needed for that estimation.

They tell me that most props are about 80-85% efficient, so to calculate the=
hp, you take the difference between your climb rate and your glide descent rate at the same airspeed, multiplied by the weight, and then divided by
= 33000.

Wt * V / 33000 =3D HP

This would be the prop HP, so to get the prop flange HP, you would divide by=
the prop efficiency, between .8 and .85.

To get the engine flywheel HP, you would have to add something for the loss<= br> of the PSRU.

Is anyone willing to take a shot at that number??  Third or forth chanc= e!
:>)

Bill B




--
Homepage:  http= ://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/list= s/flyrotary/List.html

 

 

 

= --Apple-Mail-45128502-9CB5-4F53-A040-2CA86FDA918C--