Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #7347
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: intake ideas?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:52:50 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
I certainly understand and agree with your skepticism on the results of one or even several flights.  I once thought I had topped out at over 200 MPH before I found I had forgotten to convert Farinheit to celceus for the TAS equation.
 
Just my experience with Larger vs small diameter tubes, your mileage may vary.  I do recall that Bill Eslick started out with a very short stack and later found power improvments by going to a longer stack.  You might send him an e mail to get the details.  Not trying to get you to change your mind, just relaying my experience.
 
There are many variables in induction tuning and unexpected results is not uncommon {:>)
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:48 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: intake ideas?

Actually, Rusty.  I have always been fuel injected.  My first manifold was using 50 mm twin throat TMW Webber throttle body (with 4 injectors), a racing beat webber DOE manifold which I flew on a 86 six port block.  I only had one flight on that engine with the new (longer smaller diameter) manifold before my HALTECH fuel injection system failed, so did not get a good comparison. 
 
Thanks.  I was thinking that you changed injection systems at about the same time as the intake, but couldn't remember exactly.  
  
   However, on that one flight with the old engine and new manifold I did note that my rate of climb increased by 300 fpm over the old manifold.  Certainly not a conclusive nor exhaust test and comparison, but enough to convince me to keep the new manifold when I installed the turbo block. 
 
As good as this sounds, I've learned (the hard way) not to believe anything I notice on any single flight.  While I don't doubt that you could have had some improvement, one flight is not enough to quantify it, so I have to remain skeptical.   
 
In just about every theory of induction tuning I have looked at (and its been quite a few), if they agreed on anything - it was longer, smaller diameter tubes favored torque at lower rpms and short, larger diameter tubes favored power at the higher rpms.   
 
This is a good general starting point I guess.  I'm still bummed that I can't run 7k rpm, but it just isn't efficient with the 2.17 drive, and going to the 2.85 would undo the last 4 months of work, plus some.  As painful as it is, I have to draw the line somewhere, but it isn't stopping me from dreaming about the next rotary powered plane.  After the Airbike, my sights are set on 300 mph :-)
 
Rusty (too many plans, too little time and money)
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster