A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RV Snorkle Needed?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 19th 05, 06:37 PM
MJC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default RV Snorkle Needed?

Since I admit that I have no background in the physics of aerodynamics,
I'd like to throw out this question to the group.

Those of you familiar with the RV series know that a standard Lycoming
engine without the forward facing sump requires that little forward facing
snorkle inlet at the bottom of the cowl.
However, I'm guessing that the snorkle creates some drag there that
costs a few mph. At least those who seem to know suggest that.
So what's the possibility of feeding the updraft sump with air by
instead installing a flush NACA duct at the same location?

Just wondering out loud.

MJC


  #2  
Old May 19th 05, 09:23 PM
Corky Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:37:37 -0500, "MJC" wrote:

Since I admit that I have no background in the physics of aerodynamics,
I'd like to throw out this question to the group.

Those of you familiar with the RV series know that a standard Lycoming
engine without the forward facing sump requires that little forward facing
snorkle inlet at the bottom of the cowl.
However, I'm guessing that the snorkle creates some drag there that
costs a few mph. At least those who seem to know suggest that.
So what's the possibility of feeding the updraft sump with air by
instead installing a flush NACA duct at the same location?

Just wondering out loud.

MJC


That type of inlet opening is known as a "pitot" (pronounced pee -
toe) type opening and they are built that way because they have proven
over the years to provide the maximum inlet pressure possible. It's
kind of a low grade supercharger. Extremely low grade, but better
than a flush inlet.

The problem with a flush type inlet, even a NACA inlet is that air has
mass and a certain amount of viscosity and it wants to get out of the
way of objects hurtling through it. So it parts, and begins to part
well ahead of the approaching object. By the time the cowling
arrives, the air is by now trying very hard to get out of the way and
a lot of it will flow right over the flush inlet without ducking in.
Some does duck in of course, because the inlet is connected to the
intake manifold which operates at a lower pressure than atmosphere, so
it's always trying to suck air in.

The engine would run even if there were no carburetor inlet opening,
it would just draw on the air inside the cowling, but a certain amount
of added power can be realised by pressurizing the inlet, by whatever
means.

Making the inlet a pitot type, protrudes the opening out into the
incoming air before it starts dodging the bluntness of the cowl
(essentially) which allows the air to pile straight down the inlet
thus mildly pressurizing it.

This does not impart much drag, if any, because the inlet is within
the flat plate area of the fuselage, and is facing directly forward.

By the way, at the speeds we're talking about, a mildly rounded inlet
lip works better than something sharp because you want the air to
attach to the sides of the inlet rather than be broken off by a sharp
edge and tumble into turbulent flow.

So the short answer, in my opinion, is that a flush inlet, any flush
inlet including a NACA type, will very likely produce less power and
therefore less speed than the already tried and proven pitot type
inlet, as long as this pitot type inlet is sized and designed
properly. And the pitot type inlet should not produce any more drag
than the flush type.

Corky Scott


  #3  
Old May 20th 05, 01:50 PM
MJC
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thanks Corky, that seems to explain why no one has done it yet on an RV
that I know of.
The reason I was thinking of that is because the forward facing sump
option on the 180HP Lycoming is $2200, and you pick up even more speed than
the ram effect from the FFS gives you because you can get rid of the snorkel
entirely. I was just wondering if there were a way to streamline things
better without digging deeper into near-empty pockets.

MJC

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:37:37 -0500, "MJC" wrote:

Since I admit that I have no background in the physics of

aerodynamics,
I'd like to throw out this question to the group.

Those of you familiar with the RV series know that a standard

Lycoming
engine without the forward facing sump requires that little forward

facing
snorkle inlet at the bottom of the cowl.
However, I'm guessing that the snorkle creates some drag there that
costs a few mph. At least those who seem to know suggest that.
So what's the possibility of feeding the updraft sump with air by
instead installing a flush NACA duct at the same location?

Just wondering out loud.

MJC


That type of inlet opening is known as a "pitot" (pronounced pee -
toe) type opening and they are built that way because they have proven
over the years to provide the maximum inlet pressure possible. It's
kind of a low grade supercharger. Extremely low grade, but better
than a flush inlet.

The problem with a flush type inlet, even a NACA inlet is that air has
mass and a certain amount of viscosity and it wants to get out of the
way of objects hurtling through it. So it parts, and begins to part
well ahead of the approaching object. By the time the cowling
arrives, the air is by now trying very hard to get out of the way and
a lot of it will flow right over the flush inlet without ducking in.
Some does duck in of course, because the inlet is connected to the
intake manifold which operates at a lower pressure than atmosphere, so
it's always trying to suck air in.

The engine would run even if there were no carburetor inlet opening,
it would just draw on the air inside the cowling, but a certain amount
of added power can be realised by pressurizing the inlet, by whatever
means.

Making the inlet a pitot type, protrudes the opening out into the
incoming air before it starts dodging the bluntness of the cowl
(essentially) which allows the air to pile straight down the inlet
thus mildly pressurizing it.

This does not impart much drag, if any, because the inlet is within
the flat plate area of the fuselage, and is facing directly forward.

By the way, at the speeds we're talking about, a mildly rounded inlet
lip works better than something sharp because you want the air to
attach to the sides of the inlet rather than be broken off by a sharp
edge and tumble into turbulent flow.

So the short answer, in my opinion, is that a flush inlet, any flush
inlet including a NACA type, will very likely produce less power and
therefore less speed than the already tried and proven pitot type
inlet, as long as this pitot type inlet is sized and designed
properly. And the pitot type inlet should not produce any more drag
than the flush type.

Corky Scott




  #4  
Old May 21st 05, 03:41 AM
Charlie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The more pragmatic reason is that the updraft carb or throttle body &
air filter box extend below the line of the bottom cowl. A bump is
required so putting the snorkel inlet on the front of the bump gives the
slight pressure recovery mentioned below. It's doubtful you could
measure the difference in speed because most of the variants extend back
to the back edge of the cowl, forming a 'bluff body' that helps extract
cooling air. Cooling efficiency is improved & exit air fills the 'hole'
in the air dug by the snorkel/filter box cover. (Snorkel-less cowls do
*look* faster, though...)

Charlie
flying RV-4, -7 in the oven


MJC wrote:
Thanks Corky, that seems to explain why no one has done it yet on an RV
that I know of.
The reason I was thinking of that is because the forward facing sump
option on the 180HP Lycoming is $2200, and you pick up even more speed than
the ram effect from the FFS gives you because you can get rid of the snorkel
entirely. I was just wondering if there were a way to streamline things
better without digging deeper into near-empty pockets.

MJC

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 19 May 2005 12:37:37 -0500, "MJC" wrote:


Since I admit that I have no background in the physics of


aerodynamics,

I'd like to throw out this question to the group.

Those of you familiar with the RV series know that a standard


Lycoming

engine without the forward facing sump requires that little forward


facing

snorkle inlet at the bottom of the cowl.
However, I'm guessing that the snorkle creates some drag there that
costs a few mph. At least those who seem to know suggest that.
So what's the possibility of feeding the updraft sump with air by
instead installing a flush NACA duct at the same location?

Just wondering out loud.

MJC


That type of inlet opening is known as a "pitot" (pronounced pee -
toe) type opening and they are built that way because they have proven
over the years to provide the maximum inlet pressure possible. It's
kind of a low grade supercharger. Extremely low grade, but better
than a flush inlet.

The problem with a flush type inlet, even a NACA inlet is that air has
mass and a certain amount of viscosity and it wants to get out of the
way of objects hurtling through it. So it parts, and begins to part
well ahead of the approaching object. By the time the cowling
arrives, the air is by now trying very hard to get out of the way and
a lot of it will flow right over the flush inlet without ducking in.
Some does duck in of course, because the inlet is connected to the
intake manifold which operates at a lower pressure than atmosphere, so
it's always trying to suck air in.

The engine would run even if there were no carburetor inlet opening,
it would just draw on the air inside the cowling, but a certain amount
of added power can be realised by pressurizing the inlet, by whatever
means.

Making the inlet a pitot type, protrudes the opening out into the
incoming air before it starts dodging the bluntness of the cowl
(essentially) which allows the air to pile straight down the inlet
thus mildly pressurizing it.

This does not impart much drag, if any, because the inlet is within
the flat plate area of the fuselage, and is facing directly forward.

By the way, at the speeds we're talking about, a mildly rounded inlet
lip works better than something sharp because you want the air to
attach to the sides of the inlet rather than be broken off by a sharp
edge and tumble into turbulent flow.

So the short answer, in my opinion, is that a flush inlet, any flush
inlet including a NACA type, will very likely produce less power and
therefore less speed than the already tried and proven pitot type
inlet, as long as this pitot type inlet is sized and designed
properly. And the pitot type inlet should not produce any more drag
than the flush type.

Corky Scott





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NY Go Kart Endurance Racing - Arrive & Drive - No Experience Needed OVRPNY Owning 1 May 19th 05 04:56 PM
NY Go Kart Endurance Racing - Arrive & Drive - No Experience Needed OVRPNY Piloting 0 May 19th 05 02:01 AM
builder assistance needed AINut Home Built 0 April 8th 05 07:05 AM
E2-C wheel bearings needed CaptAro Restoration 1 July 19th 03 04:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.