Tracy Crook wrote:

Gary Wolf wrote:

Paul,
   I have been looking at the photos of the steel intake manifold and

have a

question about the 2 into 1 area. I generally use a shape such as this

for

exhaust manifolds where the flow is in the other direction, but have

been

afraid to use this type of transition for intake flow.
   I am concerned about the possibility of there being a difference in

the

flow between the outside edges and the centre, where the goilet shape

is. I

have not done a flow test to confirm this, which is why I am asking.
   Instead I usually use a separate tube for each cylinder, belled at

the

inlet ends, and freestanding in a large plenum. The sides of the plenum

are

far enough away from the tubes to ensure that there is no shrouding of

any

particular tube.
   Could you comment about the merits and deficiencies of each method?

                                                Gary Wolf

This is Bill Hughes's design so I will let him comment. Bill are you

there?

BTW this looks very much like a copy of the stock Mazda manifold to me
(except lower and lighter). I could be wrong.

Paul Lamar

I worked with Bill on the design of this manifold.  It resembles a stock
manifold only by the fact that they both use a dynamic chamber.  Remember, a
dynamic chamber is NOT the same as a plenum chamber.  I felt that the two
into one scheme was worth a try because this is going on a 4 port engine
which means that the port timing is the same on inside and outside ports.
The reflected pulse from the two tubes should arrive at the same time.
Will it work?  We'll just have to wait & see.

Tracy Crook
rws@altavista.net
www.rotaryaviation.com

 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org