Subject: Simpler Turbocompounding
From: Rotary Engine
Date: 2/27/2006, 7:15 PM
To: AA-me


   Paul,

   Have you seen any development, theoretical or practical, of the
   following:

   Aircraft have a unique opportunity for using a compounding turbine's
   shaft energy. The cooling drag for an aircraft engine is about
   equal to
   the energy recovery from turbo compounding. Both are 10-15% of the
   power
   output. Connecting an exhausting fan directly to the recovery turbine's
   shaft could push the cooling air from the cowling at free stream
   velocity or greater.

   When the outlet velocity matches the inlet, cooling drag vanishes.

   The simplicity of a lightweight volute or shroud and an exhaust pipe
   could replace the complexity, weight, cost, and potential problems of a
   gear train and its safeguarding mechanisms.

   Thanks,

   Philip Groelz


   That is a real good idea Philip.
   Here is something similar.

   Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

   This is an interesting idea and I have thought about it alot in the
   last
   few days. What I can't figure out is how to get the blower or sucker
   under the cowl. Too big.

   Then I thought well why not use an exhaust ejector AKA augmenter to
   evacuate the cowl and reduce the cooling drag. This too uses the waste
   energy in the exhaust to reduce the cooling drag.

   Nothing new here. The high velocity exhaust gases entrains air and
   sucks it out of the cowl. This is a direct way of utilizing the
   waste energy in the exhaust. Here are a couple of 3Ds. Main problem
   is it adds to the frontal area and therefore increase the drag on a
   tractor airplane. Probably will work fine on a pusher to reduce the
   drag. At least one pusher rotary is flying with an exhaust ejector and
   Charlie Airseman flew his Subaru powered Variez for a few years with
   one.

   Here are some old NACA papers on the subject.

   http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/index.cgi?method=simple

   1. An experimental investigation of rectangular exhaust-gas ejectors
   applicable for engine cooling Manganiello, Eugene J Bogatsky, Donald ,
   NACA Aircraft Engine Research Laboratory (Cleveland, Ohio., United
   States)
   NACA Report 818, 19 pp.

   2. Preliminary investigation of cooling-air ejector performance at
   pressure
   ratios from 1 to 10 Ellis, C. W. , Hollister, D. P. , Sargent, A.
   F., Jr. ,
   Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio. NACA Research
   Memorandum
   E51H21, 23 pp. , 1951

   3. Preliminary air-flow and thrust calibrations of several conical
   cooling-air
   ejectors with a primary to secondary temperature ratio of 1.0 I
   :diameter
   ratios of 1.21 and 1.10 Greathouse, W. K. , Hollister, D. P. , Lewis
   Flight
   Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio. NACA Research Memorandum
   E52E21, 26 pp. , 1952

   -------------------------------------------------------
   I was guessing that an exhaust turbine driven exhaust fan
   combination would only be slightly larger than a typical
   turbocharger.  I have to admit, however, that I'm very much in the
   market for a copy of "Turbomachinery for Dummies."

   My understanding is that the augmenter systems tend to increase the
   exhaust noise level.  We were at a race track several years ago
   where a Mazda powered car was competing.  After pulling his fingers
   following one of its passes, my friend said "I think that makes
   about as much noise as it is possible for an internal combustion
   engine to make."

   You seem to have found a muffler design that offers some hope for
   "taming the beast."  Unfortunately I haven't been able to listen to
   it yet.  And I have no idea how it would work with an augmenter.


   Cessna used the augmenter design with their early 310's and I think
   they were relatively successful.  I don't think they used it with
   any of their later designs.  I seem to recall that noise was one of
   the reasons, but not the only one.

   As a result I'm not ready to pursue the augmenter ideas at this time.

   Philip Groelz

No doubt it is noiser than any muffler but we had a Velocity with
a p-port rotary and exhaust ejector  at OSH this year and it was not
all that bad. Certainly not as bad as a P210 or AT6.

Megaphones on the other hand result in permanent hearing
damage instantanously :)


Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.