AXIAL FLOW SUPERCHARGER

We are about to market a new supercharger. This is of the axial flow type. Similar to aircraft jet engines or gas turbines. While very complex to engineer and produce it is worth it. It is smaller, lighter and more efficent than any othr form of compression. The current unit is 5 inches by 8.5 inches and 10 lbs.

There is no need for an intercooler on street installations. The first kits will be for Honda. Next we want an upscale car. The Rx-8 looks like a good car. We would love to have one for a company car. But is there enough market to warrent the engineering of a kit?? With the probable volume and complexity the package will run about 3500 to 3700.

Will owners buy such a product? Lets talk about what you want. I am having trouble getting pictures in here. They are available just have to work it out.
You may have to e mail me for them until I figure it out.

Richard Paul
Axialflow Engineering

Would love to see some photos. Been watching the development on other kits and would like to see one available for the rx-8, its good to have choices. Right now there is little choice for the public.

count me in

got any ideas on price or HP???

Originally posted by Richard Paul
While very complex to engineer and produce it is worth it. With the probable volume and complexity the package will run about 3500 to 3700. Are you talking about an electric powered R/C aircraft motor (http://users2.ev1.net/~SUBARU/E-Ram_installation.htm) that produces maybe one pound of boost and is only on at full throttle?

Or are you referring to someting like turbodyne (http://www.turbodyne.com/) whose "business plan is to rapidly move to a position of sustainable operations"?

If we're talking about what I want, then I want bulletproof reliability, demonstratible HP/torque gains of at least 25%. Oh, and no vaporware. There are a number of companies that have slapped a turbo in the car and said "Hey look at us!". Unfortunately none of them seemed to have progressed to the "we have a working reprogrammed ECU" stage.

I ain't holding my breath.

Can someone tell me how to get my photos into this site??
If you e mail me at axcharg@socal.rr.com I will send you pictures

Click the 'post reply' button (Not the quick reply) and then click on the browse button, select the picture (either in JPG or gif format ) from your harddrive then click send. you need a topic and short message i think.

Trying again to get photos in

Nope, it just says my file is to big. thats for only one photo!!!!!!

So, make them smaller...

Do you have a web site?

i would be intrested but it has to be dependable and powerful, i dont want somehting that isnt going to give me much gain in horsepower and then take away my warranty at the same time

hang in for about an hour while I get some help with the photos.
I have been building these type blowers for 20 years. Every time a competitive test is done my blowers out perform anything else. Sometimes by 100%. Also like jet engines they live for a long time. Jet engines get overhauled after many thousands of hours.
Why has this been kept fro the market? Because it is hard to build and engineer.
New manufacturing methods we have just developed allow the price to now be competitive. These are cnc machined from solid billet. In fact the alloy of the rotor is something we don't even talk about.

Richard

HMMMM,
Sounds interesting.
I'd be intersted

I am skeptical. How about some more info, like a website, testimonials, before and after DYNOs, boost levels, etc. Pics would be a start.

nt

u said on street installs you dont need a intercooler , so can you if you want?, this might sound dumb but can u put blowoff valves in your superchargers?
pictures would help so we'll wait

Photos of new axial flow supercharger

internal blades,

massive airflow

Richard please don't take my comments as hostile as I have no ill intent towards you. Having said that, I have seen many people come and go making similar claims of future product development but never see a finished product. It usually just turns into pages of discussion without any real progress. If you look around the same forced induction principles are still around with no one new appearing. There was a different style of supercharger proposed on the RX-7 forum and it went on for dozens of pages and for months. Tons of people expressed interest and there was tons of discussion but never a working product. It would be nice for someone to already have developed a working model on the car with actual test results before they make it public. An actual representation of interested parties can not be judged before a product is finalized, especially in this market. Most people don't own a car for more than a few years and typically do what they want to with them with what is easiest now. Many people will express an interest in forced induction but will probably go a more conventional route before this ever gets done. Also, most people don't like being the guinea pig.

Now despite this, I am interested in the idea and would actually like to see a working model of one. I am not opposed to the idea in any way and welcome new developments which give the consumers more options than just the purely traditional. I hope that you are sincere and serious about bringing this to the market. It's not that I don't want to believe you, it's just that so many others before you have ruined the marketing of new products that it is hard to believe I will ever see it. Regardless, I wish you the best of luck.

I would like to hear about some technical ideas of your though. In other words do you intend for this to be an axial style exhaust driven turbocharger or belt driven axial supercharger? Also how many stages do you propose in the compressor? Is it just a single stage or multiple like current jet engines?

Done Yet?My amex number is............

hey, you know you can put all the pics into one thread, right? :)

Just hit 'post reply' then attach.

SO: belt driven? CFM (seems small?) so how much boost at what RPM? Cost estimate? Enquiring minds hope its not from the Enquirer!

An axial flow compressor is indeed very efficient. However, it is not positive displacement and operates nearly like those Vortech superchargers. The exception is the Vortech uses a centrifugal compressor, like a turbo.

I think Paxton used to make axial flow blowers in the 50's and 60's. I have been corrected. Latham used to make axial flow blowers.

The only sort of forced induction I would be interested in on my RX-8 would be a supercharger... That is exactly the price range that would be perfect for me as well.

how many stages are in the compressor??

wow
small huh?

Pictures look good.. Will the supercharger need to be rebuilt after a certain amout of use?

the better question is Will the engine have to be rebuilt after years with FI?

You might want to just put all the pics in one thread. ;)

If you're having trouble with size limits, or it won't let you post more than one pic, try www.imageshack.us and upload. Copy/paste each file name to your post, complete with the [img] tags.

Also, how is this different/better than usual turbos? I'm not sure I've heard of it before.

OK I didn't think anyone out there in RX land would remember the Latham supercharger. So I droped that name for this new unit. But for those who do remember I am the designer and builder of the Latham Supercharger.

This is a much smaller unit but can blow as much or more than the old large size PRODUCTION unit when the blading is sized right. My large scale BILLET units could flow 2800 cfm or more.

All my research of the last 10 years has gone into this unit and it has tested better than it showed on paper.

This unit as you can veiw it in the photo gallery is only 10 lbs. I haven't tried to push the envolope but I'm sure it can go to 1000 cfm. Pressure is dependent on stages. The four stage makes 8 psi plus. A five will make 11 and it just keeps compounding.

Current bench tests have shown 85% adibatic and there may be a couple of points left to be had.

Hope this helps. We are working on a web site. hope to have it up next week to ten days.

Richard

I would buy one if the performance numbers are good!!!!!!

Originally posted by BaronVonBigmeat
You might want to just put all the pics in one thread. ;)

If you're having trouble with size limits, or it won't let you post more than one pic, try www.imageshack.us and upload. Copy/paste each file name to your post, complete with the [img] tags.

Also, how is this different/better than usual turbos? I'm not sure I've heard of it before. I agree. Threads from Multimedia combined with this one. No reason to spread the one topic all over the site...

A little quick research indicates that Axial Flow superchargers have typically been expensive to produce and a major design issue was the need to signicantly over drive the blower (typically 500%) -- at 9,000 rpms that is 45,000 blower rpm :eek: -- can your new blower design reliably handle the rpm load the Renesis would put on it?

would be kinda coold to sound even MORE like a jet engine.......

why would an intercooler be "optional"? doesn't it create hot air just like everything else?


And the comment about being like a centrificul super/turbo.... those designs work with an inverse square pressure curve, more RPM = more PSI. just speculation, but axial would be closer to a linear pressure curve, which is much like a positive displacement (roots/screw type) supercharger.

Hey,
Im not an expert here but I like the looks and sound of this. Rotory God sure has creditbility on this forum and I like what he has laid out. Richard Paul seems sincere and I wish him luck and success. Time will tell. It's a long road from having a FI unit and then getting it to work on this car. It sure looks sweet and the price range quoted is right. If he developes a workable system I think he will find a substancial number of customers.(which was one of his questions to us)
Good Luck!
olddragger

Originally posted by lafrad
would be kinda coold to sound even MORE like a jet engine.......

why would an intercooler be "optional"? doesn't it create hot air just like everything else?


And the comment about being like a centrificul super/turbo.... those designs work with an inverse square pressure curve, more RPM = more PSI. just speculation, but axial would be closer to a linear pressure curve, which is much like a positive displacement (roots/screw type) supercharger.

I prefer no sound.

Yes an intercooler would still help. I think though that since the efficiency is so high that one could run another 1-2 psi of boost versus a Roots before using an intercooler.

Are you sure about the pressure curve differences? If so that would be great! Maybe Mr. Latham can set us straight.

Like a few others have already said, I too am sick of people claiming a soon to come FI product, then never hearing from them again. It's getting very agrivatin'.... So Richard Paul, I'd like to say skip the whole Honda thing and be my hero man! Get that thing on a 8 now, and lets do sum biz.

Let's see if I can answer all the questions at one time.
Speed of blower; The design speed is 42000 rpm. The tips go sonic at around 50,000. The bearings are rated at 54,000 with grease but they are oiled so the speed goes up. There is a 4-1 planetary gearset in the nose of the unit.

The pressure rise is a linial slope. Roots are flat, centrifugal is a curve as discribed. Now these are THEORY only numbers. In real life things like clearence leakage effects things.

Heat rise is a function of efficency. Nothing is 100%. A good roots blower is still a 50% unit. That means twice the rise of 100%. I can't lay out the math for you here but I'll give you the answers and you look up the math and check it if you are a skeptic.

7 psi or Pr of 1.5 has a perfect rise of 64 F
OK I'll show you.
pressure ratio 1.5 to the power of .283-1 gives a Y factor of .12

Take .12 times temp abs or renkin. 460+70=530 x.12=64
now that's perfect or imposable to get. So 50%=.64 over .5 or 128 temp rise.
Now an axial flow at 85% is 64 over .85 or 75 F.

Now you see why you do not need the intercooler?
The radial flow blowers run about 65% So their temp rise is 64 over .65 = 98F


Next you should know that the intrcooler never adds mass charge. What comes out of the compressor in mass is all you can get. You can change it's volume and pressure but it is still only so much air. If a pound by weight come out there will never be any more.

So why the intercooler?? So you don't exceed the thermal limit of the parts. You can tune more power out of a given mass if you can keep it from going unstable. Every degree that goes in goes through. If you can't stand any more ex temp then you best not add anything to the intake. That is why a turbo has to have the intercooler.

Now come on you guys, I only type with one finger and this is getting time consuming. If these questions keep coming I'm going to look up some text books and make you guys study.

Hope I got everyone.
Richard

All of this sounds great, but do you have the R&D done for putting this product on the 8 and available for the public? Or Just in the test phase?

I have no doubt you can get this thing to move enough air to make big power...but I think the trick will be getting Mazda's ECU to cooperate with you. :)

I'm very interested if you get it to market...

Ditto

This all sounds great of course in the generic automotive sense, but I'm missing how this has any direct bearing on the problem most of us here are interested in solving, namely that of getting a working, reliable and cost effective FI solution for the RX-8. While this axial supercharger thing may well be a better mousetrap, the fact remains that there are a bunch of existing mousetraps that work well...they just don't yet work well for the RX-8...and as several people have alluded to, the primary reason seems to be getting around the engine management issues. So, when someone starts a thread about a new FI solution for the 8, I think most everyone gets excited, but realistically I don't think this is any closer to being reality for the 8 than any of the other bits of vaporware that have been touted on the forum.

Of course I'd be delighted to be told I'm dead wrong!

jds

I admit I don't have experiemce with the 8 ECU in person. But, tell me where I am wrong about this.
If the superchatger is installed between the throtle body and the manifold, how does the ECU know it's there?? The MAP sensor is replaced with a 2 bar unit.
The ECU only knows that more air is going in and what the mixture must be by way of the O2 sensor.

True it will run out of headroom on fuel flow at the top and that needs to be solved. It is possable to piggyback a second system with it's own nozzle on the inlet of the blower.

That's just a first thought and I'm waiting for the feedback. Tell me what hasn't worked in the past.

well, sounds pretty amazing to me.

screw the RX-8's ECU and whatever... that's something you can contract to someone with experience (there are a couple that do).

i just wanna see this work, what costs will be at what production numbers, and realistic projected reliability. i mean, holy shit, if this is really as great as is claimed i will not be going for a single turbocharger in my dream RX-7, but one o' these axial superchargers *eyes bug out of head*

I'm not really sure what hasn't worked in the past, because every time someone starts up a thread on how they're going to be putting out a forced induction kit, they explain everything, show some pictures, tell us all they're a few days away from dyno numbers and then...the silence is deafening. There are certainly piggyback ECU solutions that appear to be viable for this. However, no one really knows yet how well the Renesis will take to the additional stress (at least, no one that's talking!). Its just getting a bit frustrating seeing all these "almost done" projects, most of which don't even depend on anything unusual in terms of the parts being used, never panning out.

jds

Originally posted by Richard Paul
I admit I don't have experiemce with the 8 ECU in person. But, tell me where I am wrong about this.
If the superchatger is installed between the throtle body and the manifold, how does the ECU know it's there?? The MAP sensor is replaced with a 2 bar unit.
The ECU only knows that more air is going in and what the mixture must be by way of the O2 sensor.

True it will run out of headroom on fuel flow at the top and that needs to be solved. It is possable to piggyback a second system with it's own nozzle on the inlet of the blower.

That's just a first thought and I'm waiting for the feedback. Tell me what hasn't worked in the past.

Richard, maybe you can talk to Canzoomer as he has a programmable piggyback already modifying stock ignition and fuel maps..

I'd prefer it so that I could use my existing piggyback device :D

or hook up with greddy and look into controlling it w/the e-manage.

Originally posted by wakeech
well, sounds pretty amazing to me.

...if this is really as great as is claimed i will not be going for a single turbocharger in my dream RX-7, but one o' these axial superchargers *eyes bug out of head*

And I thought you were strickly a turbo man;)

Richard, make it happen. The BEST wat to succeed is to allow some of the expert rotary folks to assist. Have you considered approaching Racing Beat? You make the unit, they test, you tweak, they market.

Whatever happened to that TurboRX8Renesis guy. Showed pics and everything. After waiting for weeks, he ran away. Maybe his car went too fast and crashed, killing him in the process? I'd like to think not.

I'm not picking a fight with anyone. As the old timers can tell... I have very few posts to back up my experience. However, the recent efficiency, and need for intercooler information is a bit misleading. So I thought I would chime in. The basic relationship for compressor efficiency is as follows:

Adiabatic Eff = Ideal compressor work divided by actual compressor work.

This equation holds true from centrifugal compressors and axial compressors (as is discussed in this thread).

In general, all of these compressors increase the temperature of the air entering the engine. The intercooler is there (obviously to reduce the temperature of the incoming charge of air. As a result it increases the density of the air and reduces the likelihood of pre-ignition (ping). Please note: The intercooler also introduces some negative things also. The pressure drop through the intercooler reduces some of the benefit of the compressor, there is increased vehicle weight, and of course we should not forget the cost.

I thought that the best way to show the effect of efficiency on compressor exit temperature would be a do a few calculations in EXCEL and plot the results. So I've created a figure that shows the compressor exit temperature for different boost pressures, different adiabatic efficiencies, and different inlet air temperatures. I will try to attach these figures to this post to show the influence of these variables on compressor exit temperature.

Turbine_pwr,

I don't really see where you are picking a fight. Real nice plots there! The plots show that increased efficiency reduces compressor outlet temp but that much of the temp increase comes from the compression process and is not related to efficiency.

It is safe to say that if a specific engine had a 70% efficient compressor that produces 5 psi of boost then if the compressor were upgraded to a 90% efficient unit then the boost could be upped to say 6 psi and still have the same detonation resistance.

babylou

You hit the nail on the head relative to detonation resistance. In addition to that, there would be less work/power being used to generate the same 5-6psig of boost. IE. Less wasted power

Turbine_pwr,

Let me try to restate what you have said:

1. Going from a 70% efficient unit to a 90% efficient unit will give you a slightly better resistance to detonation allowing you to use about 20% more boost.

2. The power lost in the 70% efficient supercharger is probably more of an issue over a 90% efficient unit than the actualy detonation resistance.

Correct?

Anyway to me the big advantage of efficient units are size, less heat and hopefully better reliability in the process.

Richard, please keep the Renesis of the RX-8 in mind for your product applications. The two working together should make for one tiny super potent power plant.

-Mr. Wigggles

BTW,

Richard Paul, you haven't mentioned anything about noise at this point. With such efficiency noise should be reduced however at 40,000+ RPM you are getting a lot closer to the point where humans are more sensitive to noise the 1K+ range.

In terms of dBA, how is your unit looking?

-Mr. Wigggles

Oh one more thing :),

Richard, you say the pressure rise is linial, does that mean that if we set up the unit to provide 9lbs at 9000 RPM it is only going to give us 4lbs at 4000 RPM?

Are there any ways around this?

-Mr. Wigggles

Turbine_pwr, Thank you. You make my point, I think I'll steal your plots.
We forget to tell the readers that they may not be able to use more boost just because it is cooler. This is because they are already getting more "boost". This is from the mass flow increase of the cooler charge.

The number you really want is "density ratio" rather then "pressure ratio"

The formula for density ratio is Pressure ratio times Temp 1 over temp 2. Temp is in degrees R. or absolute. or gauge plus 460.

So say our Pr is 1.5 or 7.5psi in hot rod lingo. or 45 in hg in abs.
Anyway lest I drift away, 70 ambient + 460=530 and say a rise of 128 for our 50% unit= 658
530 over 658=.8
Therefore 1.5x.8=1.2
So you only really got 3psi of extra air in your engine.
Lets try 65% blower or 95 temp rise
530+95=625 so 530 over 625=.848
.848x1.5=1.27
or aprox 4psi of extra air.

Now for 85% or 75 degrees increase.
530+75=605
530 over 605 .876
1.5x.876=1.31
or 4.6 added air.

I know, I'm not much of a professor, that's why I'm here and not on campus. But I hope you guys a smart enough to read through my convoluted expaination.


Mr Wiggles, On the pressure slope you are almost right. It really is a little worse. Due to the effects of leakage at lower speeds it might be slightly less. Is there hope, maybe. I am thinking of oversizing the compressor and bleeding some air between stages at the top end. Jet aircraft do this with electronic controls. That might not be practical for us. But a mechanical control might be.

Trouble with that is that axial compressors don't like to make very much external compression. It slows the air across the "wing" thus killing "lift". I take a lot of liberty with these words in an effort to explain it. The design of an AF compressor is one of the most complicated aerodynamic jobs one can take on. More so than just a wing it is a 3D cascading calculation.

So to make it simple, I can not give you a simple answer. But consider this; If you are the kind of driver who floors the engine at half speed you are not doing the engine a favor. Some call it lugging.
The high performance driver never treats his engine that way. Plus the point of optimum inlet filling is at peak torque. (my dog is named Torque. Tells ya where I'm at) so the point of critical detonation is there. NASCAR drivers when forced to restart lift when passing through peak torque. They race above that point.
They don't have electronic help. Not legal.


Next noise. All I can say is that on my older blowers as long as an aircleaner was on and you were not WOT there was no noise. I used to have a 928 Porche with a small block chevy in it and one of my blowers. It made 500 hp and 500 lbs of torque. All fit under the hood. When I would pick people up at LAX I made a point to not tell them anything. Then I'd go home on Supulveda which runs along the runway and not high trafic. Well you know the rest.

BTW, if you question my 928 story, the car was in about four magazines. I'm going to see if I can find a list for you.

So, have I missed anything???

Richard

PS OK for you guys, since there semms no end to your desire to read I'm attaching some light stuff for you. You see I used to like writing about these things.

One more thing for homework tonight. The power to compress the air is thus:

lbs of air per second x temp rise x .3395

That is what it takes in the way of work on the air. It does not include the mechanical losses. ie bearings, seals, belt drive. and the pumping losses for ducts.

I love having a captive group.

also looking for those magazines.

RAP

Originally posted by Richard Paul
my convoluted expaination.
Freudian slip?

Thanks for your answers especially regarding the noise or lack there of.

When someone says, they are marketing an airplane part for my car, I get a little nervous.

Also, thanks for the math on the not all psi are psi. We should concentrate on injected moles of air shouldn't we?

With the RX-8's torque curve being relatively flat, it sounds like your charger is going to put an upwards slope to that curve. Not all bad and in some respects better than a laggy turbo just not exactly what everyone here is looking for.

I think most people here want to raise the entire torque curve, I hope this doesn't discourage you. The price is right and the product sounds very interesting.

-Mr. Wigggles

I'm hoping that this allows for an attachment at the end.

Anyway here is another good formula for determining mass flow as recieved into the manifold. And that is the final task isn't it, not manifold pressure.

To find the mass of intake charge:

CFM X MAP X AMB TEMP R X .072
OVER
29.92 X MAN TEMP R

= LBS. AIR PER MIN


Note: The constant .072 is not standard corrected dry air 60 F at sea level it is a number I use for realistic enviorment.
MAP is manifold pressure absolute "hg
or inches of mercury

in general hp is 10x #/min
I'd better be carfull and say rule of thumb in Otto cycle engines
so if you can flow 50 lbs/min you get 500 hp.
all letters on this one will get filed.

This is a better paper than what I wrote this morning.
There's one more you need and it's coming next.

One of you smart rotory types out there apply this to a rotory.

I havn't read it in a long time so I can't wait to be torn apart.

RAP

Rotary
;)
Did this tear you up?
j/k

Richard,

I'm not all that smart, but damn I love this technical stuff. Thanks for posting it!

jds

I haven't had much of a chance to look this all over. From what little I did read, it all makes sense. I'll see if I can translate this into rotary language tomorrow.

Thank you Rotarygod for checking this one out for us!!!!!
I was hoping you would see this thread....

Richard,

I have a number of questions that may be beyond the scope of this discussion but are important relative to the topic you've presented.

By the way, if you are interested in a brief technical description of rotary engine designs Chapter 7 of Kenneth Weston's book titled "Energy Conversion" has basic equations describing compression ratio, displacement, and power calculations. This book has a number of additional references at the back of the chapter.

On to my questions:
1. In general, there is a transition point between axial flow compressors and centrifugal compressors. As pressure ratios increase and or mass flow rate decreases... the back stages of axial compressors become very short and the blade height to tip clearance ratio leads to poor efficiency. At what point would you go from an axial flow compressor design to a centrifugal design?

2. How many stages of axial compressor would you use to generate boost pressures between 8 and 14 psig. Obviously, this equates to a pressure ratio of 1.5ish to approximately 2.0

3. How would you plan on distributing the stage pressure ratio in a two or three stage design? Can you give me an idea about the target peak diffusion factor you would design for?

4. Axial compressors tend to be more sensitive to inlet distortion and back pressure and as a result tend to be easier to stall. When they surge, the entire flow field tends to break down in an axial design. However, a centrifugal compresor will often continue to pump even when operating in rotating stall (*note efficiency and flow are compromised if operating in stall). What design techniques have you employeed to minimize this behavior or alternatively how much surge margin do your axial flow compressor designs have?

5. Why use a 4-to-1 planetary gear to change the speed of the compressor rotor? This seems expensive to me. Why not just use a 4 or 5 to 1 gear/pulley ratio to step the speeds for the compressor up.

6. I assume that the compressor rotors are integrally bladed disks (I'm guessing CNC machined rotors) and stator segments. What is the estimated cost for this type of compressor? I'm just looking for a ballpark number not a quote. It just seems like it would be much more expensive than a centrifugal design. Is this a split case design or do the segments sack together and use a tensioned tiebolt?

7. Axial compressors, especially ones with small blades, tend to be good vacuumn cleaners but are also very sensitive to foreign object damage. What special steps have been taken to make the compressor less susceptable to damage?

8. In earlier posts, you quoted an adiabatic efficiency of approximately 85% for your axial compressor. As you know this corresponds to a specific compressor pressure ratio. Can you tell me what the expected polytropic efficiency for your compressor designs are? This is a better indication of technology level as it is independant of compressor pressure ratio.

Sorry for all the questions. I'm intrigued by your design. I also have a significant amount of experience in the gas turbine area. So I would like to get a better feel for the specifics about what you are proposing.

Thanks for any additional info you can provide.

Geezz Turbine, there has to come a time when I have shut up. I thought I was already disclosing too much. But lets see what I can do on some of it.

1. These things will not happen in my aplication. The max compressor I will proably ever build is Pr2.5. I have no problem with tip clearences up to. I have zero clearance on the stator. Look at some of the photos I think there is stator in there. On second thought get me an e mail address and I'll send one.

2. 4 stages as shown makes 8 psi with some left at more rpm.
5 stages will go 11 psi. I will also e mail you some pictures of a 7 stage I built for an airplane 600 inch V-12. It was 1800 cfm and 18 psi. It could have gone to 20 if it had spun max.


3. A two or three stage would not be practical here. and you are getting to senitive areas. Nuf said, OK. Nothing personal.

4. Here is where all my time was spent for years. I really think I'm the only one who has worked with this combination of problems. Consider, off design operation. Unlike aircraft or gas turbine users we have to run from host engine idle to max. Then consider the intake density is constantly changing due to throttle opening. Next you are feeding a positive displacment pump. Again I.m really speaking out of class.

5. I tried that with the belt overdrive on my larger units for years.

6. I can't go there. You can see in the pics it is stacked.

7. They run an aircleaner or I sell them a new compressor section. No really, I have sold hundreds of units and only a few were ever damaged that way. Mostly from carb jets. We don't have those anymore. But they still have nuts. Normal FOD has not been a problem. Plus my old one was investment cast and these are solid billet. Solid bar stock and I will not tell you the rotor alloy. unobtainium they say.

8. On the instant unit all I can say is that the adiabatic goes from very high then slopes and then up again. The low speed can hardly be accuretly read with the equipment we have. Even with digital temp readings the delta is so small that I have to give it some slack or we would be running in the 90's. I reported this to my professor of turbo machinery and he said that is normal for this design.

Sorry I went back and removed some things. I really don't know when to speak and when not. I'm sure this forum would never wind up bitting me in the butt, but lets stop someplce

Maybe in the future we should speak privetly.

Richard

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrWigggles

Also, thanks for the math on the not all psi are psi. We should concentrate on injected moles of air shouldn't we?



-That's what we should do. Actually someone already thought of it and named them "slugs". That is how we use the "Gas Law". I'm out of wind, ask Turbine.

RAP

For all of you guys biting into this Richard Pauls' hype regarding an sc, be very cautious. I for 1 don't want any person developing anything for my car when they have to ask questions about rotary engines. Mr Paul, if you're really legit, give your sc to a rotary expert and have them develop it for the 8.

As far as asking if there is a market for it, the RX8 community shouldn't have to prove anything. The aftermarket performance market has been growing so fast that question is moot. Where's the product. Don't hype us up, just put it out.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!

NEXT!

I for one welcome new blood into the rotaty world. I'm sure Richard can work out the details on how to apply his SC to a rotary - with the help of others? Probably. But I'm sure he can do it.

Will I be the first one to buy a kit? Probably not, but I'd be tempted. Yes, Richard has a long way to go to deliver something (and may never), but I respect him for starting an open discussion. And since he hasn't made any delivery commitments yet, calling this thread hype is, well, hype.

Originally posted by derwankel
NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!!

NEXT!

I always respect the "man of few words" approach...

Gee TALAN7, and I always talk so highly of you.
Just to show how fair I am, you can buy a bare compressor and do your own kit.
If you can't, then you are on my special discount program. List price PLUS 30%

Noticed the only thing you have bought is a speaker system. Did that make it go faster?

If you don't open your mouth they never know how dumb you are.

Richard,

I hope the response you've received (idiots aside) has shown how enthusiastic this group is about FI for the RX-8. There's going to be a great market for it as a lot of us are clearly foaming at the mouth just talking about the possibilities.

Given that so many highly respected members of this forum are interested in what your compressor can do (namely rotarygod and Wakeech) it's definitely piqued my interest. Of course, it'll take an installation and #s to make the case complete, but I certainly hope you're able to bring this to market. Best of luck.

Don't get me wrong Mr Paul, I don't knock you for introducing a possible new product particularly a performance enhancing one. It's just that this board is full of rumors and hype regarding products that never see the light of day. People try to take advantage of those seeking power gains. Good luck in bringing your product to market.

Originally posted by Richard Paul
If you don't open your mouth they never know how dumb you are.

...

Build it....and we will buy.

So when would this new product come out.... roughly? 1 year, 2 years? Just wondering how long it would take.

Best of luck. As someone said earlier, maybe teaming up with a company such as Racing Beat, to give you the money, facilities, and time to do the critical science part, instead of worrying about the marketing, would be the best idea. I noticed at the end of your first paper that you mentioned that...you seem a hell of a lot smarter than me, I think you would be able to do some incredible things for the '8 if you could give it 100%.

Originally posted by Spazm
Double post, sorry

click edit, then click delete post.

Richard I like your style.

Richard -- thanks for sharing and getting our interest flowing. Having an Aero Eng. undergrad degree (too many years ago to remember my fluid dynamics!) I am intrigued by your application -- I vaugely remember working on a senior project to test and modify a multi-stage axial-flow compressor by varying the stationary blade angles.

IMO opinion your application is a potential fit for the RX-8 market -- like our car it is elegant and unique in design, lightweight, and efficient.

I might also suggest you re-think the business plan a little. It might seem inviting to enter the Honda market first -- being a huge market for performance parts. However, since you are delivering a product that is likely at the top end in terms of cost, quality, etc. -- entering a large and somewhat mature market first may not be the best use of your competitive advantage (technology and know-how). A strong business case could be made that entering a market that is emerging, has little direct competition and is technologically advanced would be a much better (more profitable) fit for your product. Your potential for profit margin and generating market image with your product is much higher in the RX-8 segment than in the Honda segment. Depending on your production volume capacity, entering a high margin, high image segment (RX-8) should allow you to generate much higher profit margin and leverage your strengths.

Just my opinion FWIW ;)

Richard,

I, too, am intrigued by your axial flow compressor/supercharger design. Your comments about operating range are quite interesting. Example: If you define a compressor design speed of 45k rpm at 9k rotary output speed (obviously I'm assuming a 5-to-1 gear ratio). Then on a standard day at idle, the compressor is operating at approximately 10% referred speed. As you pointed out, this is a much wider range of steady-state operation than a gas turbine normally experiences. We do of course have to get gas turbines started which requires at least transient operation through these speed ranges.

One of the benefits of an axial flow supercharger over a centrifugal design is that the flow lapse with speed tends to be flatter than a centrifugal compressor. As a result, you should be able to match the engine and compressor flow behavior more effectively and you would likely make a bit more power in the low speed range then centrifugal design (I need to run the numbers to figure this out for sure). Additionally, axial flow designs tend to have lower inertia then centrifs and this would improve acceleration behavior. Based on what I've seen, I think it is entirely possible to make a high quality axial flow supercharger that could be used effectively in an RX-8 application. What it costs to do this is outside of my experience level. Anyone got ballpark ideas??

As many people have pointed out. I believe the big hurdles will be in the implementation of the modified airflow sensing, fuel scheduling etc. I do not have experience here but it's my understanding that communicating through the firewall that Mazda has built into the CAN software has been the primary problem. I do not want to take anything away from Richard's thread here... but can anyone create a thread that talks to the specific issues with the CAN/OBDII communication protocols and any thoughts about the best ways to address these issues?

Thanks Richard for your openess and your rapid responses.

Richard, to echo RXhusker's thoughts,

Not to sound snobbish but the average RX-8 owner is more mature than the average Honda owner.

We don't dog our engines the way that crowd does and we typically strive for top notch installation. This means if your axial supercharger is a top notch product then we will be happy customers and you are less likely to get complaints about your product simply because some idiot abused it or installed it improperly.

RX-8 owners believe in FI, we want FI, we can afford FI, and no one else is giving us FI.

Sounds like a good market to me.

-Mr. Wigggles

Richard - to get back to your original question -- I am ready to write a check for the right FI application -- in fact I am past ready ;) I am sure there are many others also waiting for a real FI application to hit the market for our RX-8.

Richard,

I agree with MrWiggles' comments, most RX8 owners are more mature and have a steady jobs, unlike the Honda crowd.

Word travel fast on this site. Witness what happen with the Canzoomer Piggyback ECUs. He has problems keeping up with demand! If your product is good, we will buy it and help you advertise it.

As one of the younger ones, at 18. i believe the statements above are right. the rx-8 is a booming bussiness that customers are willing to buy. Competition is low since products are only developing. Even as a poor college student, i would buy :)

Oh, I forgot to ask...what is the address to send the check?

Don't let the negative comments pull you down. That's all I have to say.

Richard. I have a check waiting. Tell me when and where to send it. I want one!:D

Richard - do we have a committment to proceed?

Many of us await your positive reply.

OK, OK, You guys have me. Today we spent the time examining an Rx 8 in detail. The space is tighter then thought. But it can be done. We are also pretty sure the electronics are doable. Next week the Mazda will take up concurent development with the Honda.
Honestly the Honda is easier and of course the compressors have been built. It just requires the streetable kit to be developed. The first compressor for the 8 will be built in about two weeks.

Then the hard part of fitting it into the car, The compressor will be size matched to the 8's mass flow. This can be tested on the bench.

It will make you guys happy to know that we are getting rotory help from established rotor heads. So less worry about our learnig curve. It'll be a month until any hard news for you. I'll keep you posted. If it becomes possable, pictures.

You don't have to bug me anymore, my partner has such a woody for an Rx-8 you can bet it'll get done.


Thanx, Richard

Hey Baller, are you a beautiful woman??

What an awesome conclusion to a day spent getting over food poisoning. You rock Richard!!!

yeah

having just read thru this thread for the first time i have just one comment- until this thread i was uninterested in FI for my 8. now i have started trying to think what i can sell to raise the money for your axial supercharger. bring it on sir i will be waiting!!

Originally posted by zoom44
having just read thru this thread for the first time i have just one comment- until this thread i was uninterested in FI for my 8. now i have started trying to think what i can sell to raise the money for your axial supercharger. bring it on sir i will be waiting!!

DITTO!!!

Nice... cant wait

From what I can tell, It seems to me that this Axial Flow Supercharger is a lot more sensible option for the 8 than a turbo for the street.

Because :-
1. - It should be a lot more drivable.
2. - It should be significantly cheaper.
3. - It should be less obtrusive and smaller.

I want one too!! Bring it on....

Count me in!
Would like to be a distributor for the Tristate area (Ohio, Michigan, Indiana)

*wipes drool from chin*

Yes, it may be some hype at this point and could be several months from being a viable product for public consumption, but it looks damn good even this early in development. I'm patiently waiting for the perfect boost kit and will just have to see how this one develops.

Perhaps I'll now have to convince the wife that perhaps the kids can go to a public school after all. ;-)

This is an interesting thread! I'm surprised that an axial flow compressor would have the range to provide the necessary airflow at both low and high engine rpm. I would suspect that compressor stall and surge would be real problems, but hopefully you've got those beaten with some bypass devices or variable geometry. I suspect the part count, potential number of machining operations, necessary tight clearances, and small blade height might make this a rather expensive proposition. Perhaps net shape powder metallurgy processes can keep costs down on the bladed components! Please keep updating the progress on this! Thanks, Rich

Sounds good & all but 1 question? i live in Australia would this product be for international owners aswell?

P.S Richard you sound pretty confident in what your doing and thats always a good (especially in business). Keep it up

Richard,

This has been an intersting thread to read. I look forward to seeing the results. Keep up the good work and the well thought out answers. Maybe someday I will be able to buy one, for now the dreams are good enough.

thanks

Hope you're spending this time wisely workin' on the s/c. i really appreciate your efforts and i sincerely hope this pays off for you as well as the rx-8. give us any new details when you can. thanks

It's been a week and a half with no report or update. What happened? Please tell me this isn't another potentially good idea that disappeared thread. I want to believe.

i think hes building.............?
hey someone earlier said its should be cheaper i thought these were expensive to build?

The RX-8 compressor prototype is being built. It will be done in about 10-14 days. Then it will be bench tested. We have accsess to an engine but not a car.

The reason I have not posted anything is that I don't want to just flap my jaw. I try to answer any questions as they post.

Keep the faith I'm working hard on it. As soon as there is a hard part you will get pictures.

I also think the electronics can be worked out. With a lot work that is.

This is going to work or I'll be sitting under a bridge with a fuzzy face drinking from a brown paper bag. H'mm, that's what Dave Zeuschel used to say would happen to me.

Thx, Richard

Yay an update! That's all we wanted. Thanks.

Good luck Richard.

This is an info hungry group. Please continue to keep us well fed! :D

If this really WORKS -- you will be cashing checks for a long time. Can't wait for some real results/details. Please tell me when the waiting list starts so I can get my name towards the top :D

I'm still interested as well. I cant wait to see an install and some output numbers. I'm saving money to finish paying off the last of my debt, but I could save that money for this instead :b

Richard,
Would it be possible to use an electric motor to spin up the SC at low RPM. I'm guessing you need a couple thousand RPM coming in to get any messurable boast out. Could you spin put at low (perhaps on demand) then let the engine take over at high RPM.

No rush on the answer, I'm just wondering.

Richard,
I think i sense some determination in your last message LOL!
Go big guy! Supercharger mcuh better for this car than a tubro in my humble opion. One thing to keep in mind is that their is a heat factor under the hood of this car. Read the threads on burnt coils, heat and the ecu concerns etc. Turbos = heat, superchargers are much better i think. Also one respected member (rx8 friend)states that the engine cover HAS to be used because it directs airflow properly and without it the car is much more likely to burn the coils. so in placing/ mounting the unit i suggest keeping that in in mind? Luck to ya man. If you can produce the product with a reasonable price YOU WILL HAVE A MARKET!

I think after reading all the reactions to this post, it finally makes sense to me. This supercharger seems much more unique than its counterparts. For many of us, driving a rotary engine is a reason in and of itself for purchasing the RX8. So why just slap an engine component on it that most people on the street could get? We want to keep it unique! =)

And us TiT gray owners want to look and sound like a fighter plane even more (except for wings =x)

Originally posted by Lufa
The only sort of forced induction I would be interested in on my RX-8 would be a supercharger... Uh.... all forms of forced induction are superchargers -- the rest is all about how you drive the supercharger or how the supercharger produces its boost.

Richard, it's really good to hear that the Latham Supercharger is not merely a fond memory! I wanted one of these for my 383 MoPars, but that never came about. Now it looks like I may get one for my RX-8!
BTW, my 8 is available for testing, and as I am retired now scheduling would be easy.

From what I remember from my years at Snecma (jet engine manufacturer), an axial compressor is efficient on a very limited range of (high) RPM. Without any further research or calculation, I'd consider it not compatible with an automotive application.

On the other hand, has anyone out there ever considered designing an epitrochoidal (rotary) supercharger? I've been thinking about that since I read in Yamagushi (great read by the way) that all pumps in the Renesis (oil and water) are of this type!

Richard Paul, I was wondering what sort of ECU jiggery/pokery you were planning to use with this supercharger.
Personally, I really like the sound of the AccessECU being developed by Cobb Motorsport.

http://www.accessecu.com/products/accessport.html

This is already available for Subaru's, and is anticipated to be available for the RX8 mid July/early Aug. and this is what I would like to couple with your supercharger. It has the added bonus of not requiring you access to the actual ECU (can't do it on U.K. spec. cars as it's a sealed unit), or you having to mess around with the internal wiring of the car.
Please feel free to PM me if you want, and then we can talk about this in more detail.
Keep up the good work; and Thanks again for all your work. This is what we all need... :D

Originally posted by IKnowNot'ing
From what I rmember from my years at Snecma (jet engine manufacturer), a centrifugal compressor is efficient on a very limited range of (high) RPM. Without any further research or calculation, I'd consider it not compatible with an automotive application.

That would be news to all those turbocharged auto that use a centrifigul compressor.

Originally posted by babylou
That would be news to all those turbocharged auto that use a centrifigul compressor.

BIG BIG mistake : I meant AXIAL. I'll edit the original text right away. Thx babylou.

[i]...... It has the added bonus of not requiring you access to the actual ECU (can't do it on U.K. spec. cars as it's a sealed unit), or you having to mess around with the internal wiring of the car... [/B]

Are you talking about the ECU of the Subaru or the RX8 there? If your talking about the 8, does that mean ECU mods are out of the question on UK spec cars?

(This would be a major bum ache)

Both :). At the moment this product is available for Subaru's, and it is being developed for the RX8. You just plug it in to the car, and upload a new map to your car's ECU (+ some other features). As Mazda have gone way over the top protecting our ECU's for Thatcham requirements (U.K. only :( ), this is about the only way we can change our engine management maps without having to splice into the cars wiring loom...

how nice it is to live in a country where everything is harder and more expensive to accomplish.

Cheers

Here's an update on the Rx 8 project.
The compressor parts are done. There are some improvments in the inlet and outlet housings. It has five stages. The nose has been shortened as much as possable.

The parts are at the polishers and I will pick them up today. I will take pictures tonight and post them in the morning.

We will assemble the compressor and start bench tests by the weekend. If all goes well we will start to fit to an engine next week. That;s as far as I can predict the future.

But it all looks great. You will be able to see the Mazda specific mods to the parts.

Richard Paul

so long, but yay, an update!

Originally posted by whosyourbaba
so long, but yay, an update!
On 6/4, Richard said it would be a month before he had any hard data. Even if it's two, I'm impressed. Of course, he still has the actuall vehicle fitment, testing, ecu issues to go...

Thanks for the update Richard -- it is much appreciated. You have a lot of guys anxiously awaiting a finished product -- but at the same time we want you to really do it right. Just feed us little tidbits as you go.

I just hope at the first little setback we don't get riled up. There is bound to be a setback or two along the way.

Yup, and it's apt to be the ECU tuning.

One quick question from an inexperienced supercharger user. Would you have to retune the ecu differently with a supercharger + aftermarket intake or would it be the same as a supercharger + stock intake?

I would think it would be the same.

I doubt very much if the stock intake would even be an option with a supercharger. I would imagine there would be a big pipe and filter on the front of it to flow as much as possible....someone car correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt all that variable intake tract stuff would be necessary or even desirable in an FI application.

jds

The variable length tunning of the stock intake would be unneccesary and mismatched with any FI system.

-Mr. Wigggles

I would set it up so that the variable valve system is only operated under boost. That way, when the car is running at part throttle and not under boost, it is still running with the tuning benefit of the tuned system and with max velocity through the only open runners. This would give good off boost response. When positive pressure is realized, all of the valves open and max flow is available that so the compressor can force air into the engine as easily as possible. Best of both worlds. As long as the ecu can automatically adjust fuel/timing maps based on pressure this wouldn't be an issue and a very easy solution.

sometimes i need more time to post. i was thinking exactly the same thing as rotarygod and if i had got my post in first it would have looked brilliant coming from me and then having him agree:)

And that is exactly how we are going to try and do it.

I'm still waiting on the polisher to call. Then I;ll get you the pictures of the Rx8 compressor. Or at least the parts unassembled. Assembly to follow the next day.

He promised me today, but then again he said that yesterday.

It's not my fault!!!!

Richard

Originally posted by zoom44
sometimes i need more time to post. i was thinking exactly the same thing as rotarygod and if i had got my post in first it would have looked brilliant coming from me and then having him agree:)

You're just trying to make yourself "look" intellignt by saying that!!! ;) j/k

Originally posted by Richard Paul
And that is exactly how we are going to try and do it.

I'm still waiting on the polisher to call. Then I;ll get you the pictures of the Rx8 compressor. Or at least the parts unassembled. Assembly to follow the next day.

He promised me today, but then again he said that yesterday.

It's not my fault!!!!

Richard

excellent that you are going to try doing it that way! thanks again richard for the update

Richard,

If you are looking for tuning on the ECU, I have heard rumors of some tuners in south florida that have been able to "crack the code" of the greddy e-manage on mazda's. The most recent car was a protege, I have been following this thread and was wondering if possibly this was a course possible for the ecu tuning. If I am wrong I am sure everyone will let me know.


- Tigster

Richard, I've every confidence that the supercharger will be 'the business', and I am anxiously awaiting your pics. I am still a little curious about your intent with regards to tweaking the factory ECU. Would you be prepared to share this??
Also, will this kit be available without the ECU management you have chosen / will develop if your chosen solution proves to be not an appropriate choice for a certain situation.

Thanks again.

P.S. - If all goes O.K. (and I'm sure it will) show me where to sign on the waiting list :D ...

Originally posted by rotarygod
...As long as the ecu can automatically adjust fuel/timing maps based on pressure... And therein lies the rub.

And...
Have you decided on the routing of the supercharger and it's associated components (intercooler, DV, etc..)? I would kinda like to keep my stock covers if that is going to be an option.

Thanks again (again!) :) .

Originally posted by Omicron
And therein lies the rub.

It's not a problem for a Motec!

I am so looking forward to this getting completed

A

I know this is a rather noobish question but is this sorta like a plug and play sortof instalation like u hook up a few pipes into the intake with the axial charger and a new piggy back unit can some 1 show me a pic of a car with it. thank you

no one can show you a pic of a car with one because he hasn't finished making the prototype yet.

First update in a month was on my birthday...its an omen I can feel it!

But seriously, thanks for the updates. Anxiously awaiting successful completion of yet another strategic assault on my wallet.

I'm having one hell of a day. If this posts then I'll be supprised. Then I'll go back to my own computer and send the photos

RICHARD

ooooo photos..

Lets see if this works. I had a spyware attack today. Bought some killer disc. Killed the spys and now a lot of stuff doesn't work.

Looks like it will work now. BUT I can't get the pics in. Says they are too large. Someone tell me how to make them smaller.

Help me out you computer gen guys.

send them to me. i'll host them for you.
email

OK I'm ganna try it but who says my e mail even works. It doesn't on the in box, wwe shall see if it goes out.

if not, if you have photoshop, i can probably walk you through resizing them, but if not well.. uhh.. yuck

just try. we shall see.

Planetary Gears
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/planetary.jpg

http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/volutes.jpg

5 stage stacked...
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/stacked.jpg

Volutes (for real)
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/volutes2.jpg


http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/screw.jpg

rotors/stators with 0 clearance tips:
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/rotors.jpg

Thanks Ajax for the help with the pics. I'm ready for some sleep myself. I'll add some comments in the morning. Then I'll go in and assemble the blower, take some more pics and post them.

Good night, Richard

No problem man.
I'm gonna go get some sleep now too.

awesome!!!!!! im so excited :D:D:D

Very cool. Sure hope this works out.

good work ajax and thanks for the pics richard!

=Lets see if I can give some comentary on the pics since they were relayed through Ajax.

First pic is the gearset. here you can see the four pinon drive shaft/ cage ass'y. notice that the pinon gear is mounted on needle bearings.

next is most all the componants less hubs and shaft spread out.

unit mocked up. showing size relative to tissue box

volutes and transmission housing.

Transmission housing with gearset and drive pulley installed. Note that the pulley matches the Mazda 5 groove belt. Also that along with the snubby housing the pulley is reverse overhung to reduce size.

These are the five stages of rotor/stator. Notice the zero clearence stator tips (Patent pending)

I'm going into the shop now and will ass'bl the blower. Get some more pics and post them tonight.

Richard

Man that looks like one expensive blower. Also, you said everything is made from solid. How the heck are those stators made from solid?

You know what would be cool? Change the planetary gearbox to a CVT. Then you could keep this baby on full boil all of the time. Never another argument on boost rise or whatever.

Originally posted by Richard Paul
[Bunit mocked up. showing size relative to tissue box

[/B]

Oh OK. I thought that was there in case some of us got too excited! :D

unbelievably sick.

what're the lubricating demands gonna be like??

Well I'm back from the shop now. Put the compressor section together, all went well. When I went to put the housings on I realized I had forgoten to cut the lybrith seal. When I get mad at myself I stop building things as screw ups come next. So when I feel calm I'll go back and do it.

Lets see if I can answer some questions.

Babylou, Yes it is true, every part you see in the pictures was cut from solid bar stock. several different alloys but all billet. The stator is trick enough so that we have applied for a patent. As to the CVT, a few years ago ZF claimed they had something that would work with my compressor. We never actually touched bases but there was some around the back comunication.
I haven't thought about it since. My feeling is that it will cost more then the blower.

Yet if someone in the buisness of building cost no object cars????

Wakeech, there is a passage system with orficed bathing for the gears and bearings. Rear is greese only. This uses engine oil. It could also use it's own dry sump. I do that with high end race or off shore blowers.

Really,
Velocity 8, Didn't need that thought. Excuse me while I go poke my minds eye out. Just kidding, good to have humor, very good if you work on cars. you usually wind up needing it.



If I missed anyone tell me and I;ll answer if I can.

Richard

Couldn't any typical piggyback ECU do this as well? It would have to be able to read a pressure sensor, but for instance I'm pretty sure the Canzoomer hardware was set up to do this when the kits become available.

jds

Originally posted by rotarygod
It's not a problem for a Motec!

richard,
if you need anymore pictures hosted, just let me know.

Originally posted by bureau13
Couldn't any typical piggyback ECU do this as well?

jds

not even a lot of stand-alone computers do this.

Richard Paul,

Man, this is looking good. Couple questions during your "down" time You dont have kids do you? LOL. I was reading (forgot what turbo thread) that the composite intake we have is actually EXPANDING during acceleration! Is this a concern with boost applications possibily making a new intake neccessary? And question # 2 Are you far enough into the mounting/placement design to know if the engine cover will be retained? I understand it helps the airflow under the hood. Heat is a factor here. Yesterday on a 84 degress georgia day I measured the ecu box temp and after a normal drive of approx 30 miles at the speed limit of 65 it was 138.7F. I think thats hot for electronics.
Keep up the good work man. I think you are the most serious FI project I have seen.The community of the 8"s await. If you are sucessful then you will be THE person that has unleased the beast!
olddragger

Olddragger, yes I do have kids but they are both out of collage. One is the chief solid modeler for Lucas Films making Starwars movies the other is an engineer at Boeing.
So they arent around much anymore as they don't even live close by. My older son, the engineer worked with me on the supercharger before he went away to school. The other never liked working on engines, he was always the artist. Went to Art Center Pasadena. And never turned a wrench again.
There may be hope, my grandkids are racing go karts.

No, if in fact there is something going on with the intake it will have no effect on our installation. I doubt that it is really expanding though. There is no reason for that to happen. If it were do to pressure drop it would have to be one really thin section. I don't think they could mold it that thin. It can't be temp change as the composite doesn't transfer heat well.

I am aware of the under hood air flow problem. I really don't think it a problem as some do. I have more confidence in Mazda's engineering then that. I used to worry about the electronics under the hood and it is alway better to keep them cool, but modern products seem to be much better at it.

I have heard about some coil problems and would like to know more. However I am going to be sure it is taken into consideration. Your temp reading does not seem to high for what my opinion is worth. The biggest problem is heatsoak after you shut the engine off. Then there is no airflow and the heat starts to even out to all the underhood componants. that means if the block is 250 it starts to loose that heat and it goes into other things. So your temp mesurment is not going to be the peak that part will see.

It's the same for the supercharger, it has air going through it when running. In fact it has air at reduced pressure so it is cooler yet. When it is then shut down it will obsorb heat from the engine. Therefore we must allow for heat effect to that level.

Richard

Originally posted by Richard Paul

I have heard about some coil problems and would like to know more. However I am going to be sure it is taken into consideration. Your temp reading does not seem to high for what my opinion is worth. The biggest problem is heatsoak after you shut the engine off. Then there is no airflow and the heat starts to even out to all the underhood componants. that means if the block is 250 it starts to loose that heat and it goes into other things. So your temp mesurment is not going to be the peak that part will see.

Richard
When you shut off the RX8 at high temperatures, it kicks the engine fan back on to cool the engine down until it's within reasonable ranges and then shuts off. Standing heat is dangerous, but I'm sure this helps some.

Originally posted by olddragger
Heat is a factor here. Yesterday on a 84 degress georgia day I measured the ecu box temp and after a normal drive of approx 30 miles at the speed limit of 65 it was 138.7F. I think thats hot for electronics.
olddragger

Nah, that's a normal underhood temp. Almost every car I have instrumented is within 10F of your measurement. Though 140F is at the limit for normal electronics all underhood electronics are uprated. My oil well drilling products use electronics rated for 347F.

Guys ,
thanks for the respones. Richard Paul I know you are proud of those kids! They sure sound creative and successful.
The rest of you thanks for the feedback on the heat also. I'm not an expert so I appreciate all the info. Glad to hear modern electronics can withstand this type of heat.
Another measurement I did today was interesting. I measured PRE-filtered air(temp sensor installed next to the actual air filter) temps after driving on business type roads etc for approx 15 miles, speed limits 45-55 ,outside air temp 92 degress and the pre filtered air for the cart was 112.8 F. Then I measured Pre-filtered air while driving down the interstate at 70-80 mph and it was 95.9F (still 92 degrees outside) Hmmmm 17 degress differance, Probaly doesnt mean anything but it does futher suggest to me that this car doesnt have a lot of airflow going on under the hood. WHich also probaly may not mean anything . Anyway food for thought! Keep up the good work Richard.
olddragger

Babylou, those temps all sound about right. Are you telling me then that underhood electronics in modern cars are uprated to the numbers like your oil equipment stuff?? Also how does one know? It would be nice to know there is a saftey margin on your car.

Olddragger, that all makes sense. What is happening is that at low speeds you are not evacuating the air fast enough, so it picks up heat. To another effect the ram air is not as active. I know people don't think they have ram air if there is no scoop. That's not really true. There is always a high pressure area in front of the car. The faster you go the more pressure there is. You can't help but get the pressure.

In fact it may hurt some trans am guys out there but a scoop ala old mustangs and transam are in a low pressure area. Notice NASCAR guys never use that sort of scoop even if it were stock. They take air in at the base of the windsheild.

Anyway I just came home for lunch after assembling the new blower. I'm going back to finish up and take some pictures. I'll post them when I get them back on disc.

Originally posted by Richard Paul
Babylou, those temps all sound about right. Are you telling me then that underhood electronics in modern cars are uprated to the numbers like your oil equipment stuff?? Also how does one know? It would be nice to know there is a saftey margin on your car.

No, the automotive underhood electronics are rated to a lower spec than my oil field stuff. I believe that underhood automotive electronics should be rated to 212 F. To be sure I will ask a few buddies in the biz next week.

How does one know what temp rating your electronics are rated to? Without getting the information from the manufacturer it would be tough. Sometimes the same chips can be rated for two different temps but the difference is the QC testing.

Maybe I'm missing something. How does a computer handle boost if it can't adjust fuel and timing based on pressure?

jds

Originally posted by wakeech
not even a lot of stand-alone computers do this.

All the efi systems have a MAP sensor, right? So therefore they are always monitoring pressure. The speed density type use just those inputs plus preset maps. The air density type may get away without it but I think most still use the imput. Air flow type must know density. I guess they could get it from baro pressure, temp, and humidity. But still manifold pressure and temp are so easy to use it seems silly not to.

There have to be some experts out there reading this thread, pitch in. I have built three EFI system using componants from all over and they were very good. I was not having to CARB them though.

Here is a picture of a unit I built for myself. I made all the special parts and bought the controler from Haltec. It was a 16 nozzle system. I used a GM map sensor. Two corvette 2 btl throtle bodies. I modified a Holley intake and hand made the fuel rails.

atachment didn't stick. try again

Originally posted by Richard Paul
All the efi systems have a MAP sensor, right? So therefore they are always monitoring pressure. The speed density type use just those inputs plus preset maps. The air density type may get away without it but I think most still use the imput. Air flow type must know density. I guess they could get it from baro pressure, temp, and humidity. But still manifold pressure and temp are so easy to use it seems silly not to.

There have to be some experts out there reading this thread, pitch in. I have built three EFI system using componants from all over and they were very good. I was not having to CARB them though.

Here is a picture of a unit I built for myself. I made all the special parts and bought the controler from Haltec. It was a 16 nozzle system. I used a GM map sensor. Two corvette 2 btl throtle bodies. I modified a Holley intake and hand made the fuel rails.

To actually measure the quantity of air going into the engine , OEM ECUs usually relies on two different principles :

- Mass Air Flow measurments using a MAF sensor (hot wire / hot film) that converts the required heating of a hot wire into an air mass and therefore air charge, or engine load.

- Speed Density based upon a T-MAP sensor (Manifold Air Temp + Manifold Air Pressure), based on the principle that air charge (or engine load) is directly proportional to manifold pressure.

The RX8 EMS is of the MAFS type and, based on the service manual, has no MAP sensor. It's not the best system to manage a supercharged engine with significant boost.

Aftermarket ECUs usually don't evaluate or calculate the amount of air going to the engine as it requires very accurate and elaborate simulation models. They usually just use the sensor measurements as direct inputs for the base fuel, spark advance and all the other tables. These sensor inputs can be, on the best systems, of three types :
- Throttle position based on a TPS
- Speed density : based on MAP with an air temp corretion
- Mass air flow based on MAFS

Some also provide a 3D tables MAP vs TPS vs RPM that are difficult to calibrate (map) and usually used for highly restricted turbocharged engines (like WRCs or GTs).

The super/turbo-charging of an engine require the following features concerning the engine management :

- In order to keep a sensible level of spark advance in the case of significant boost pressure, the compression ratio needs to be lowered. Failure to do so, will require a very high level of spark retard (due to detonation) leading to very hot exhaust gases, low efficiency a,d probably some toubles with the exhaust manifold. For very light boost pressures, one can rely on the knock control level of autorithy to keep detonation to an acceptable level. This option can be further stretched by using high octane fuel. My rule of thumb tells me :
> 1 RON corresponds to approx. 0.2 CR
> 1 RON corresponds to approx. 1°CA spark advance

- I think that for fast road application, one MUST keep the original ECU in order to manage all the emission, diagnostic, confort and safety functionalities of the OEM system. It would also allow the system to work close to standard until significant level of boost is required by the driver. That would leave you with three options to supply more fuel under boost :
1) Rising rate fuel pressure regulator : cheap and nasty but works for medium levels of boost
2) Auxiliary ECU driving extra injectors. Their injection phase must be referenced against TDC.
3) Auxiliary ECU intercepting and modifying the original injection pulse signals under boost. I believe that's what the Canzoomer piggy-back does already.
4) Modifying the calibration of the OEM ECU : you must either sleep with a Mazda calibration engineer or be one.

- The increase of air flow du to the supercharger WILL trigger a diagnostic error due to MAFS readings going beyond its calibrated max level. Some electronic gadgetry (basic signal processing) needs to be placed between the MAFS and the ECU to prevent this.

- If boost levels are significant, I guess one could get rid of the complex acousticly tuned intake system. In either case, I wonder how an axial S/C will behave when its outlet side will be 'hit' by a returning pressure wave. Will it instantly stall or will it behave like a windscreen hit by a fly?

doesn't the RX-8 pcm have a baro? i believe i have read that in one of the many canzoomer posts. then it could derive the pressure from baro,humidity and temp as richard states above

The baro pressure sensor is either integrated within the ECU or at a remote location in the engine bay. It gives info about the ambiant conditions, not what's going on in the manifold.

BR Performance (www.brperformance.com) makes Eaton supercharger kits for the newest Miatae that use two small little piggy back computers. One for fuel and the other for spark. The computers have their own pressure sensors. The setup is supposedly limited to 8 psi boost and the piggies are a Jackson Racing product.

I can attest that the solution works flawlessly. In fact, I have never driven any full aftermarket ECU cars that peformed so well in the real world. We are talking about idle, throttle response, etc. all are the same as when the car left Hiroshima.

Why did I say all of the above? Because I think this talk of highly sophisticated aftermarket engine management schemes will lead to more blow-ups, longer development time and reduced driveability for the first few years. Down the road when there is a large base of experience built then of course there will be a legitimate need for the fancy ECU's so the fringe can build their 450hp monsters.

All i want is some damn boosT, haha, Will this engine need to be ported? and Compression Lowerd for some boost? this car runs almost an 11 compression rate, guys who work on my car tell me to get any significant boost , that needs to be done

paul yaw will be/is using a motec for his supecharger.

Last week I attended a car show where Brumos Motorcars had several different new Mercedes-Benzes displayed including a new E55. Now the E55 is supercharged and produces approx. 469hp. I was told that this car (the ECU) had been sent to Renntech in Miami where the ECU had been reprogrammed and the estimated hp was now about 520 and the speed limiter had been bumped to 176 from 155. The cost for this was, if my memory serves me, about $1500, maybe a little more. All this did NOT void the warranty.
So, here's the thought. If Renntech can get 50 hp out of reprogramming the ECU, why can't someone in Rotary world do something similar. I'd gladly pay $1500 for 50hp while keeping the warranty intact. Maybe this only works for super/turbocharged engines??? That likely is the answer, but it seems that something should be able to be wrung out of the 8 without having to add on all sorts of piggybacks, etc.:D

Originally posted by TybeeRX-8
E55 is supercharged

FI vs NA is a big difference when it come to tuning.

Richard,
Iknow nothing sure sounds like he knows a lot! (not flaming ya man) He makes some good points BUT dont get discouraged. Build the dang thing and I KNOW it will be workable. I understand Canzoomer is almost ready to ship his programable unit which I believe has been said to be an opion when a boost system is available. Also someone(i forget who) on this forum has managed to apply a Geddy system to his 8. Hell people like me and you (that have been around a while!), know that perserverance is much more effective than intelligence! Like I know nothing says "imagine"!
Go Richard,Go Richard, Go Richard!
Remember the simple life with the muscle cars?!
oldragger

Olddragger, True, true, Oh if only there were a 409 with 2 AFB's.
Then again, nothing was fast enough for me, so mine had a Paxton on it.

Then there was the factory number 4 Studebaker Hawk with 2 AFB's. Then when the factory part of that deal was over I put a Paxton on it too.

I must love problems.
RAP

What kind of other pictures or info do you have on that V-8 that is pictured? What type/size was it. How much boost did you run and how much power did it put out? It looks pretty damn cool!

Here's some more pics from richard:
1. 5 stage comp sec, one together, 1 apart.
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/5stage.jpg

2. 5 stage comp sec with shaft
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/5stageshaft.jpg

3. 5 stage rotor sections
http://jedi.betterbox.net/images/rx8/5stagereflaction.jpg

Well, I'm not sure if the sudden outbreak of EFI discussion was due to my question or not, but all I really meant was that it was my IMPRESSION that a number of piggy-back and stand-alone ECU solutions could modify fuel and timing based on pressure. No, the RX-8 doesn't have a MAP sensor, but adding one should not be problematic. So, I didn't understand what sounded like gloom and doom over the fact that the current stock ECU didn't already do this. Now, the comment that few stand-alones do this confuses me, and made me wonder what I was missing.

Anyway, any FI solution requiring a Motec is NOT going to be anything close to a mainstream solution. I'm pretty sure Paul Yaw's supercharged motor is aimed at racing, right? The ECU in the 8 is just way too entwined with all of the other stuff going on that people are not going to want to sacrifice. However, I still don't see anything that would prevent a piggy-back ECU solution from providing what is needed for FI.

As for the compression issues, they've been beaten to death in numerous other threads, from what I've read there it doesn't look like 10.5:1 or whatever it is is necessarily the death-knell for an FI Renesis.

jds

First off Ajax will be posting some new pictures of the Mazda compressor just assembled. That is as soon as he finds them on his e mail.

Next Rotorygod, You mean you have an interest in piston engines also??

That engine is my personal small block Chevy that was intended for my El Camino. It never got there due to a divorce. Anyway it was 396 cu in. I know it's a small block. I;m not confussed. Bore=4.030 stroke=3.875. 396".
Billet Crower crank and rods, JE pistons. chamber shaped dish. Crower solid roller cam. Special grind. Double roller t chain. two peice front cover. Crane springs and rev kit and pushrods.Fisher dampner. Aviaid pan. Mannly pump blueprinted and welded pick up.

Brodex heads ported in my shop. 2.02 intake 1.65 exhaust. Isky roller rockers on ARP studs. ARP studs throughout. .000 deck with .038 gasket. 8 to 1 comp ratio. I used a EFI distributor gutted everything but the mag sensor. Then hooked to an MSD 7a

Holley single plane manifold machined to acceept nozzle bosses. Nozzzles held down with fuel rails. bosche 55 lbs nozzzles. bosche pump. Haltec controler.

The supercharger was a one off all billet 7 stage designed for 1250 cfm at 14 psi. but was never run full speed. ran it at 11 psi and 1080 cfm. at 7300 rpm on my dyno it made over 740 hp.

This engine sadly wound up doing mule work on the dyno for a few months. Not used at full power just checking stuff out. Work that could have been done by a mild 350.

It then sat in storage bolted to the superflow until I sold the dyno. Then it sat in my Mothers garage until I sold the blower to one guy the efi to another then the engine to another. Who ironicly put in an El Camino. I think he put a street roots blower on it. Still an awfull lot of bullet proof parts for a street machine. probably at best pumping 600 hp.

The real interesting thing is the blower. It is going on a cost no object '56 studebaker Hawk. With a Packard no less. The owner is a very smart guy with so much knowlage of things automotive and old someone should upload it.

I don't recall there being any other pictures of it but maybe. If I come across them I'll send them to you. If there are any details you want to know I;m sure I still remember or there is a file on it someplace. There are pictures of the supercharger.

Wait I'm wrong. The pictures are of the 1800 CFM 18 psi Reverse flow blower I built for a Ryan Falconer V12 600 inch engine for a 3/4 scale P-51 Mustang. Notice the rear inlet, axial style. The standard automotive is Radial inlet in the front and radial rear defuser. You can see the standard type of setup on the engine. Also notice the add on planetary searset. That was stolen from a Ford transmisson.

When the supercharger pics get posted I'll coment on them.

RAP

OK the pictures are obvious. They are of the first 5 stage assembled. Notice there is one not assembled. Does this mean there is more than one??
Yes, we bought matirials for 25 and machined 7.
The next pictures you will get will be of the unit on the test bench. I hope I'm not boring you with all this but I was a little sensitive of people yelling vaporware.

I'm keeping you up to date so you know I;m working balls out on the thing. You'll just have to grin and bare it. It was you guys that talked me into putting the honda aside abd doing the mazda.

RAp

I can't even beging to express how excited I am about this project. I just read the entire thread in about two hours! I have to admit that the numbers are a little overwhelming for people like myself with little engine experience. However Mr. Paul, you have done an excellent job explaining you design and how it works. I'm ready for this to be in my 8. I'm 18, this is my first true car, and I have major respect for all other RX-8 drivers. Our car is a unique design, and only deserves unique parts. This design is perfect for the 8. Mr. Paul, GOOD LUCK... MAKE IT HAPPEN CAPTAIN!

oh yea, screw the check... I'll drive to Cali and I'll bring the CASH!!! :D

Richard, if I had the time (which I don't right now), I'd put together a website for you. Maybe when I get back from all my business trips (Phoenix this weekend and then chicago for a week and a half) I'll put something together.
It's easier to actually run a site than just linking all of this from one of my boxes.
That way I can also just set you up w/some upload scripts and you can upload pictures and comments to one of my databases.

Something I'll have to work on.. I'm still not done w/the ROAD-Club website either, lol. But then, when you work 70+ hours a week, you dont have time for anything. Thankfully, I'm an insomniac so I dont need to sleep :b

Originally posted by olddragger
Richard,
Iknow nothing sure sounds like he knows a lot! (not flaming ya man) He makes some good points BUT dont get discouraged. Build the dang thing and I KNOW it will be workable. I understand Canzoomer is almost ready to ship his programable unit which I believe has been said to be an opion when a boost system is available. Also someone(i forget who) on this forum has managed to apply a Geddy system to his 8. Hell people like me and you (that have been around a while!), know that perserverance is much more effective than intelligence! Like I know nothing says "imagine"!
Go Richard,Go Richard, Go Richard!
Remember the simple life with the muscle cars?!
oldragger

I certainly don't want to discourage Richard. He just seemed to want to know what he was up against in term of engine management. But I'm sure a lot of knowledgeable people in his vicinity can come to help him dealing with that aspect so he can concentrate on the supercharger design and development.

When tests start on this axial supercharger, and in order to allow the community to compare this novel (I' never seen something similar before for automotive applications) supercharger against competitors, it would be nice to obtain the following technical data from you Richard :
- Power requirement vs. air flow at different discharge pressures and s/c RPMs
- Temp difference (outlet - inlet) vs. air flow at different discharge pressures and s/c RPMs
- Volumetric efficiency vs. absolute discharge pressure at different s/c RPMs
- compressor lag at various engine speeds (transient behaviour).

For an example of dynamometer set-up to conduct such tests, I refer you to the SAE tech paper # 850244 of which I have a copy.

For other aspects discussed in some posts above, as already mentionned in my previous post, I agree with Babylou about the need to keep the OEM ECU on a aftermarket turbo/supercharger road application. I would however point out that the rough character of some project run with aftermarket ECUs is usually due to :
- a lack of knowledge of how to calibrate an engine management system (EMS)
- lack of proper procedures for calibrating an EMS
- lack of development time
and not to the ECU itself although it is true that they usually don't offer the same level of refinement and confort as OEM ECUs.

IKN

IKN,
First, thank you for your posts on the EFI subject. It started some flowing of information. I belive Turbine Pwr thoght if this discution a few weeks a go.

I am personally not as worried as everyone else is. It can be solved. I can't say anymore.

It's funny that you seem so well informed on most things but never heard of an automotive axial flow supercharger. One of the original purpose built superchargers was The Latham. firat built in 1956 it was produced for almost every type of car and boat at the time.

Problem was cost and Norm Latham stoped building them in 1965. I bought the company in 1982. I redesigned the unit completly and started sales in 1983. In total there were over 1000 units built. That is not many but consider costs it was good sales. They always sold for twice what others did.


In fact most of all those sold are still running. I get calls all the time for parts and service. Several sold on E Bay recently one was as old as 1958. And still usable. Now those old '50's units didn't flow enough for modern engine they were the best for thier time.

The production units I built in the 80's were fine for street cars of the era. As soon as I can get a scanner I will send you a copy of a test performed by Airflow Research for Peterson Publishing. This test was open to all manufactures who wanted to play. The rule was that they would put it on thier engine and it would be limited to 7 psi.

The baseline engine put out 320 hp. three other (all roots) companys showed The best of the roots made it to 392 hp.
My blower made 464. I flat doubled the increase of the roots.
I didn't do the test they did.

Next, I too have a copy of SAE 850244. If nemory serves me I think I agreed with thier ideas on the mechanical and data stuff but, not on test procedures. The methods they spec out will not work with the axial flow. Again I read a long time ago but that is how I saw it.

Next as to giving out all the data that we compile is not going to happen. While we will give out temp deltas and pressure ratios I doubt there is any positive reason why we should give out everything we learn.

On page 13 of my thread you will see a picture of two blowers in the 6 inch dia size. These are custom billet units one was built in 1990 the other in 1999. So I have plenty of past product to speek for.

This is another place I don't worry as much as the other people do. My big problem has been solved. With new manufacturing methods I can make the thing at a price competative with the others. While still producing a better product. The pictures you see on the tread are not just prototypes. This is the product, we are making with this manufacturing method. These sort of parts will be what a person gets. You can't get these sort of parts except for aero useage.

Also get SAE paper on centrifugal verse axial flow superchargers for aero usage.

Hope that answers your questions. If not just write back.
Richard

Richard, thanks for all these details. I will do a search on the internet about the Latham s/c. I really thought it was a novelty (brought to us by some 'mad' scientist or aero engineer). Your production of 1000 units since 83 therefore comes as a (good) surprise!

Re the tech data you compile, I understand and I'd be glad to buy the relevant SAE paper that you won't miss to publish when time comes! Note however that some other s/c manufacturers publish this kind of data. I have a few sheets in front of me here from Eaton and Opcon.
On this subject, do you have a ref # for this axial vs centrifugal s/c paper?

IKN,
I Will look for that paper in the morning. I'm sure it is at work.
Her if it goes through is a picture of what happens when you stall an axial flow compressor by pushing shear air across the face.
Damn it is too big I will try to make it smaller.

<---- Huge skeptic (lets see REAL numbers)

I'll put a twin-screw against your axial any day of the week. Which you haven't mentioned, and they're much more efficient than a roots as well. First reason I'm skeptic is you wanted to start with a Civic. The peak of performance. Second you're now working with the RX-8, a mid to high 14 second car. Some thing tells me that there would be more demand from car owners that are more interested in speed than the quality, handeling, looks that the average 8 owner baught their vehicle for. Also you're talking like a peak hp number is somthing to gawk at. The way boost ramps up on axial/turbo/centrifugal applications is why the REAL fast guys have roots blowers (4 second dragsters). And there's a reason twin-screw isn't allowed on those cars (to much power). Power under the curve my friend, will always beat a nice peak number.

To many pages not to have a single performance number or a working model for that matter. If you have one slap it on a motor, I don't care what it is, and give me the facts. I want parasitic drag numbers, real cfm, inlet vs outlet temps, and hp/tq gains.

Sorry for sounding like an ass, but the experienced of us have heard "this will make big power blah blah blah" then nothing.

It sure went through! I was not aware of a destructive stall related test for FAR certification. Was that failure on the GE90 intentional? It looks like it as there is some containment fairing around the compressor, as for a bird strike/ingestion or compressor blade failure tests.

Nice Picture
You just gotta know that gona cost some one.

Originally posted by RotorWheeee
Nice Picture
You just gotta know that gona cost some one.

It's gonna cost YOU everytime you fly a Boeing 777.

IKN, very impressed. You even knew what plane the GE90 engine came on.
Yes, it was intentional. Kinda dumb though, there isn't any way that there could be a complete 90 degree wind shear. Yet it's good to know they look at everything they can think of.

Yes, that is a "scatter shield". They shoot frozen chickens into the thing.


Here's a picture of a 747 that was just carrying a twin screw blower in the cargo compartment.

Originally posted by Richard Paul


IKN, very impressed. You even knew what plane the GE90 engine came on.
Yes, it was intentional. Kinda dumb though, there isn't any way that there could be a complete 90 degree wind shear. Yet it's good to know they look at everything they can think of.



Cheating! After my years at Ford, I worked for 2 years at a SNECMA owned company. It supplies some parts of the GE90 (like a gerotor oil pump) and did a lot of engineering work on the compressor. I worked on the much smaller GE CF34-10 (trips to Cincinnati) after some crap military maintenance assignments (visited San Antonio and OC).

PS : good 747 picture, even better comment!

Originally posted by Drewstein
<---- Huge skeptic (lets see REAL numbers)

I'll put a twin-screw against your axial any day of the week. Which you haven't mentioned, and they're much more efficient than a roots as well. First reason I'm skeptic is you wanted to start with a Civic. The peak of performance. Second you're now working with the RX-8, a mid to high 14 second car. Some thing tells me that there would be more demand from car owners that are more interested in speed than the quality, handeling, looks that the average 8 owner baught their vehicle for. Also you're talking like a peak hp number is somthing to gawk at. The way boost ramps up on axial/turbo/centrifugal applications is why the REAL fast guys have roots blowers (4 second dragsters). And there's a reason twin-screw isn't allowed on those cars (to much power). Power under the curve my friend, will always beat a nice peak number.

To many pages not to have a single performance number or a working model for that matter. If you have one slap it on a motor, I don't care what it is, and give me the facts. I want parasitic drag numbers, real cfm, inlet vs outlet temps, and hp/tq gains.

Sorry for sounding like an ass, but the experienced of us have heard "this will make big power blah blah blah" then nothing.

NO SOUP FOR YOU. NEXT!

An absolutley fascinating read.

I am amazed at how I found this thread. I was kept busy on the "Roots" thread (although I am investigating and want to develop twin-screw), and Richard chimed in with a comment on Axial flow compressors. I know what they are from some basic knowledge of gas turbines, but had never heard of them, or the Latham before.

So I got really intrigued, and went to google and entered "AXIAL FLOW SUPERCHARGER" and guess what the VERY FIRST HIT IS??

This thread! I was amazed, and spend the best part of a few hours reading all your posts.

These are the sorts of things I would need to know to try and make a "theoritical" comparison. (Yeah - I know a practical comparison is best, but you gotta start a dream and a design somewhere...)


For a given pressure ratio, what is the mass flow rate v's input shaft RPM?
For a given pressure ratio, what is the inlet/outlet temp difference v's input shaft RPM?
For a given pressure ratio, what is the power required to turn the input shaft v's the input shaft RPM?
All of the above at different pressure ratios (say 8, 11, 14 PSI)
What happens in this design when at low flow rates you crack the throttle wide open and then engine sucks high flow past all those "little wings". How does this design cope with that. I guess this is all related to the "stall" phenonemon.


(I will make a point about reading all the docs Richard posted)

To me, those first are the 3 most important specs I need to know about how the unit performs.

I know that these sorts of designs are the "piece d' resistance" best practice for gas turbines, and cope with vary high RPMs and very high pressures, as well as high efficiencies. I also know that gas turbines are best suited to constant RPM (aka cruise) type operation.

Unfortunatley, I am looking for a solution that can get me more low end grunt and not go stratospheric at hi RPM's. Perhaps that is not achievable. Practical experience will tell.

Looks like 3 choices so far...


Constant boost (Positive Displacement Supercharger)
Linear boost (Axial Flow Supercharger)
Non-linear boost (Centrigugal supercharger/turbo)


I also remember sitting in high-school english classes, ignoring the lesson, but instead drawing designs with other petrol head mates. We wondered about an axial flow turbo design, where the exhaust gasses spin the compressor in the same manner as a gas turbine. I distinctly recall a little diagram we drew outlining this concept. Has anyone any history/links on this applied to automotive forced induction??

Turbos, with their centrifugal compressors and (heck what do you call the bit on the exhaust side???) seem to be the best practice for piston engines. But surely they are not the be-all and end all. I like to see some novelty and new ideas (or modern application of proven technology).

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee... it's called an impeller if I am not mistaken (please correct me if I am).

To show Drew that I proposed alternet supercharging to the NHRA about 5 years ago. I even made a case for saftey. They are not interested. So here is a paper I prepared for them.

By the way the other side of a turbo is the turbine. There are some people out ther who for fun make turbos into jet engines by adding fuel and a spark plug.

Here is a quiz for you drew. multi choice. A. axial flow
B. centrifugal C. roots D. twin screw.

What type of compressor is run in each of the following aircraft?

F 4
F 5
F 14
F 15
F 16
FA 18
F 22
F 101
F 111
F 117
F 86
A 7
A 10
B 52
B 1
B 2
707
727
737
747
757
767
777
AB 300
AB 320
MIG 25
MIG 29
Marage F1
Saab something or other
SR 71
DC 10
MD 11
MD 90
That's about all I can peel off the top of my head.

Answer: All but one have A. axial flow.

The winner will be the first guy to name the plane with the centrifugal.

Richard

Nice Richard! RG keep putting the less informed people in their places! LOL

Originally posted by Richard Paul
...




Answer: All but one have A. axial flow.

The winner will be the first guy to name the plane with the centrifugal.

Richard

I looked at every one of them for tha last 20 min : can't find it!! I thought it was the F86 to start with, but no, it isn't.

It is the F 86. Sadly I lost my very best freind of 25 years in one of them. Dave Zeuschel master engine builder of blown fuel Chryslers and later of Merlins and P-51's themselves.
He sold his own P-51 and built the F 86 from a shell he found at a military school. Lost his life at an air show in the thing.
Z was responsable for a good number of the Reno Mustangs.
The first plane he built was the Bearcat tha Gredemyer set all the records with and won Reno many years in a row. That plane is in the Smithsonian.
His Mustang "Stilleto" held the world closed coourse record for most of the 80's

Hymee, that was you in my english class? No wonder I failed, we just enabled each other.

RAP

I thought it was the F-86 too, then I looked it up and found this page:

http://www.acepilots.com/planes/f86_sabre.html

To quote the site:
Q: I heard that the Russians copied the British 'Nene' jet engine. So the Sabres were basically fighting against British engines.

Mahurin: The British scientist, Sir Frank Whittle, had developed a jet engine that worked on a centrifugal compressor. If you looked inside your washing machine and saw that thing rotating around, in essence that was the thing that compressed the air that went through burner chambers and then out the back end of the MiG-15's engine. The only way to increase the performance of that engine was to increase the size of that compressor. When you did that, you increased the weight of the turbine wheel. Then the engine got to the point where its increased performance didn’t compensate for the added weight. So the centrifugal compressor engine eventually became obsolete. But during the Korean War, it was pretty good for the MiG-15 and light enough so that it had a high performance.

But the F-86 was powered by the GE J-47, an axial flow engine. This engine is like having a whole bunch of electric fans stuck together, pumping air in and increasing compression. That compressed air goes through the area where they have gas, and ignites the fuel, and that goes through turbine wheels on the back end, and that provides the forward thrust. Eventually, the world embraced the axial flow engine.

My intent isn't to say Richard is wrong, actually this blurb backs him up! :) I just don't know the real answer on the F-86 now. The first models probably did have centrifugal, until they realized they weren't good enough.

I'm sure the F-86 was a GE axial flow assembled in Ohio.

Man do I feel dumb. I was inches away from the compressor section on Dave's F 86. One weekend I stoped by the hanger and the tail was off exposing the rear of the engine. What was happening was a new Burner ring was being installed and I was inlisted to help. I never even thought to look at the comp. section. It wasn't really visable from the rear.

It seems that GE made two engines at different factorys. One with a centrifugal compressor at the Lynn plant. Another with the axial built at Schenectady. In 1943 GE decided to go ahead with the development of both because they felt the centrifugal will get done first and help win the war. The axial because it had more potential.
Both engines were designed for 4000 lbs thrust with 78 lbs/sec air flow. CALLED THE I 40 THE CENT TESTED IN JAN 1944 WITH 4200 LBS THRUST.iT FLEW IN THE xp-80A. But only a few dozen Lynn I 40 engines were built when the Schenectady plant produced 300 engines now named the J33. The axial engine was now called the TG-180.In 1946 the TG 180 was begining to work right and wasnamed the J35.

The biggest producer of J35's at the time was Chevrolet. For the mass production Allison was tapped. After being relived of production GE went on to design a J 35 type engine with the same frame size. Only to be rated at 5000 lbs thrust.

This had an uprated axial flow compressor of 12 stages flowing 92 lbs and a Pr of 5.This engine by 1948 became the J47. This engine progressed in power until the mid fifty's. At the final build spec it had Pr of 7 and flowed 142 lbs/sec. There were 870 of this spec engine built they produced 9200 lbs of thrust. All were built for the final F 86H.

So are you all confused?? It's a good bet that only very few F 86 were ever built with the early Lynn engines. Probably only test planes. So I was wrong, All production F 86's were axialflow J 47's. To complicate it further the J47-27 was later designated the J 73

There were about 36,500 J47s built.

The above profuse data let was Richard's way of admitting he made a boo-boo on the F-86 engine but he still knows his stuff. I'm cool with that.

RP
I am impressed! I dont say that a lot. It seems from the posts that not only do you have creditable working experience but you also are very creative. Nuts and bolts man and idea man all in one! By the way did you throw a paxton on your lawnmower yet!? LOL!
This is my 1st "tuner" car. In the past if I wanted performance I was into NA cubic inches. My favorite engine was the chev factory396 (L 88 i believe I may be wrong there) factory aluminin heads etc. Open up the breathing on it a little and it would scream. I just hated those solid lifers and burning plugs up every week! How things change. I appreciate you taking time aswering my laymans questions and I will continue to follow your developement. You may be making history here man (again).
INK thanks also for your info. You have been a support. Keep brainstorming. There can never be too many questions as long as you never loose the belief.
olddragger

Drewstein, I just finished dinner and I.m talking to Torque my golden retreiver. I'm thinking about your post and Rotorygod just about handled it much better then I could have. There is one more thing. "REAL fast cars". Well drag racing is the bottom of the ladder for technolagy. It is the Fred Flintstone of racing. I can say this because I have a drag racing background.

I've mentioned Zeuschel who pioneered blown fuel Chryslers. Another life long freind just happens to be the man that started the custom GMC type blower industry. By that I mean the first one to build his own case and truely set all the clearences. Also developed the nylitron strip inserts, Larry Bowers.

4 seconds of engine life. Impressive. Every week the advertizments up the HP claims. No one knows, and it doesn't matter. The only drag racers that show me any real smarts are the Pro Stockers.

You want to talk about real engines and real power. Look back at the turbo era of formula one. The 80's. How about 1200 hp from 91 cu in. That was qualifying trim true but they were only detuned to 1000 hp and then ran a 200 mile race. The numbers again 1500 cc's over 1000 hp and they run for two hours.

They did not use roots blower. They ran little bitty turbos on 4 and 6 cld engines. these were about the size of your drag race blower by itself. One more thing they run on gasoline.

Today they run 183 cu in engines and no blowers. They are a little down on power at 925 but they are more drivable. more stuff? how about they run practice qualifying and the race on the same engine. they run 19,000 rpm with no valvesprings. The best number is this one: the engine weighs 200 lbs.

These are the FAST ones. everyone else is just pretending including myself.

Hell I'm more impressed with the NASCAR good ol' boys. they get 820 hp out of 357 cu in with pushrods and a carburator. I can't fathom how they run 500 miles at 9600 red line with pushrods. amazing. They're good. No engine managment, no electronic help.
A carb and a distributor truly amazing.

I'm done, gotta walk my buddy now.
Thanks to everyone else for all the support.
Richard

Well I'm a first timey, and Ive read all 15 damn pages of this shit, most of it was empty characters that my febal mind couldnt understand. (hope i spelled febal right). Any ways i foudn this forum to find mods for rx-7 (3rd gen) and I am always interedted in buying new, hence rx-8. I knew from day one of rx-8 release that FI is a must for any engine because excess is never enough. Back to point, mad props to Richard for doing your thing, i wish you the best of luck on this project. And as much as i would like to support your AF supercharger I have no rotary of my own to put it on. But like ym pops always said it aint magic its money that gets things done. Or as someone stated earlier, cant remember who or on what page, its persistance over intelligence. So again, Thanks to RP, rotarygod, olddragger, babylou, IKnowNot'ing and ajax. You guys drained 3 hours out of my life catching up on this whole thing to only come away with the fact that the Axial Flow S/C is damn pretty all polished up. Lol good luck and thanks for the great read and dones of facts and formulas and pretty pics. Peace and Elbow Grease - Greg

PS I dont know how i posted to this thread but my name isnt Kyllc. But I will be staying intune to this thread for history is in the making.

Originally posted by Richard Paul
You want to talk about real engines and real power. Look back at the turbo era of formula one. The 80's. How about 1200 hp from 91 cu in. That was qualifying trim true but they were only detuned to 1000 hp and then ran a 200 mile race. The numbers again 1500 cc's over 1000 hp and they run for two hours.

They did not use roots blower. They ran little bitty turbos on 4 and 6 cld engines. these were about the size of your drag race blower by itself. One more thing they run on gasoline.
Richard

Those F1 grenade engines did not run on gasoline. The stuff they ran was more akin to rocket fuel. Each engine manufacturer had their own fuel company partner that specially developed fuels for them. These fuels added close to 20% to the power potential of the engines versus gasoline engines. The costs were $2000/gallon before the special fuels were mandated away.

Originally posted by kyllc
(hope i spelled febal right

nope, it's "feeble"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=feeble&x=20&y=17

:D

Topic = Axial Flow Compressors/Superchargers!!! Please!

Babylou, It was still a hydrocarbon fuel. I'm aware it had a specific gravity of .81 or more. They blended it for each specific track. But that's what they do in F1. Money doesn't matter.
But in reality the fuel was "free".

Still it ain't nitro.

So what are the HP figures required to drive these compressors at various RPM?

(Question asked before, but an(other) attempt to get back on topic!!)

Cheers,
Hymee.

Hymee, I don't have those numbers yet. If you've been following the thread you woould see that I just put the thing together. It will get bolted to the bench tomorrow. then it takes some time to get all the data and put it in a readable form.

Richard

I'll throw my quesitons back in as well. Forgive me if it makes little sence but could you run this design off an electric motor. It would seem you could design for a particular RPM and Boost output and attach a motor that gives you the desired RPM. Then with a flick of a switch you go from zero boost (economy mode) to X psi boost in a few seconds regardless of the engine RPM.

I am sure their are a lot of considerations that I am not taking into account but I figure it worth at least asking.

Originally posted by Richard Paul


What type of compressor is run in each of the following aircraft?

F 4
F 5
F 14
F 15
F 16
FA 18
F 22
F 101
F 111
F 117
F 86
A 7
A 10
B 52
B 1
B 2
707
727
737
747
757
767
777
AB 300
AB 320
MIG 25
MIG 29
Marage F1
Saab something or other
SR 71
DC 10
MD 11
MD 90
That's about all I can peel off the top of my head.

Answer: All but one have A. axial flow.

The winner will be the first guy to name the plane with the centrifugal.

Richard


The T-37 tweet uses a centrifugal type compressor section in it's engines. This is the same engine used in Aerospace ground equipment as an HVLP air source for starting bigger jet engines. I didn't see this aircraft listed but it is still in use as an Air Force multi engine jet trainer. Do I still win??

Many of those aircraft listed use twin compressor and exhaust turbine sections connected through a hollow shaft allowing them to work separately but still simultaneously. Audi just picked up the ball on that idea with it's direct manual gearbox. Proof positive that some of the best automotive technology comes from aircraft.

Keep up the good work Richard. The group 311 said it best, "Fuck the naysayers" The wankel engine is such a unique piece, it only deserves a unique supercharger as well.

P.S. The only 2 Saab something or anothers I can think of are the Viggen and Draaken.


Regards,
SSgt Newton, Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman turned recruiter, USAF

Jtdwab,

This electric idea has been around for years. It really isn't practical as the amountt of juice it would thak requires more then you have available.
the other thing is that if your concern is "economy mode" consider this. During cruise driving there is a reduced pressure zone where the rotor is turning. Therefore very little power is being used turning it. only ehen required to do work and the pressure and density goes up is there power consumed by the blower. This does not hold true in a blow thru system,. there it will draw power and make heat all the time.

Just remember making heat takes power. This is a rule you cannot beat. It is the reason efficency is so important.


Newtlicious,

You win. After my screw up I'm glad someone came up with a candidate. I'm not familure with the TWeet. Apparently it is a trainer. Just for my own edifacation I will look it up later.

Thanks for the note. Thanks for the Saab names I couln't remember them at all, just a blank. Of course as I reveue the list I remember a few others I left out. It was just to make a point anyway.

Richard

Originally posted by Richard Paul
It was just to make a point anyway.

Richard

I know dude, It's cool. Just trying to help. You'd be here all day trying to name all the aircraft in service worldwide. Keep up the good work!

JUST BUILD THE DAMNED THING ALREADY! Just kidding...LOL :D

Folks, the bickering has been removed from this thread.

Drewstein, babylou, & Rotarygod, please don't start it up again.

Thanks Omi...I subscibed to this thread and it was a bit annoying getting emails about updates only to find insult tossing. I for one appreciate it!

Richard,
You have my support for this project! I am really looking forward to seeing the kit assembled.

Originally posted by Omicron
Folks, the bickering has been removed from this thread.

Drewstein, babylou, & Rotarygod, please don't start it up again.

Thanks mate.

Cheers,
Hymee.

thanks omi,

-e-

Yeah thanks Omi!!!

Omi, you really are a 'Super' Moderator. :)

enough of the thanking omi or he'll have to remove those posts too :)

Originally posted by zoom44
enough of the thanking omi or he'll have to remove those posts too :)
You're just jealous 'cause you're not a super like him. :)

But really, let's get back on topic. This thread's been hijacked long enough. Any news today Richard?

Thanks for the thanks folks. Just doin m'job. But I'm starting to get embarassed about it... :o So yeah, let's get back on topic.

What's the good word, Richard? Have you installed it yet and produced a 500 WHP beast with no lag? :D

Hymee,

You asked a while back how much HP to drive a compressor (supercharger) to make the ballpark performance we are talking about. So, I thought I'd offer up an approximate answer to your question. Please note: This does not account for the bearing/mechanical frictional losses etc.... it only accounts for the power input to compress the air to the boost pressures we are talking about. My assumptions:

8.09 psig of boost (Pr=1.55)
Assumed peak boost at 9000k RPM which by my calcs leads to approx 0.64 -to- 0.677 lbm/sec of airflow (depending on inlet air temp). Two levels of compressor efficiency were used 65% and 85% which likely bridges a typical design in this size class. I've ball parked the constant pressure specific heat at 0.24 BTU/Lbm. So.... drum roll please

85% efficient system = 19.65 Hp
65% efficient system = 24.67 Hp

to drive the supercharger compressor to make more power.

So... there you have it.

Regards

Turbine_pwr,

Thanks mate. That is the sort of stuff I like to see!

How do you feel the mechanical/frictional losses compare between an axial flow, and a twin screw?

I have a graph published for an autorotor that says it takes about 22kW (~30HP) to pump about 20 kg/min (0.73 lbm/s)mass flow at 13,000 RPM input speed (full load at 1.6 bar abs (pr = 1.6)). It can pump up to 25kg/min (0.92 lbm/s) but drains 32kW (43HP).

That seemed a lot of power to be drained :(

There are other graphs for higher pressure ratios for the device, and obviously the power required goes up, as does the discharge heat.

BTW - I have measured the Renesis flows 225 grams/second of air (0.496 lbm/s) at full load / WOT @ 9000 RPM. I did that using the MAF sensor and the ODBII diagnostics.

Thanks again for the input!

Cheers,
Hymee.

Just for giggles... I thought I would tell you all what engines are in these beasts that Richard rattled off. Sorry to digress here but thought some of you may be interested

Richard wrote"

What type of compressor is run in each of the following aircraft?

F 4 - GE J-79 afterburning axial flow turbojet, Isreal uses the PW1120 turbofan
F 5 - GE F-20 which if a derivative of the J85 I believe
F 14 - PW TF30 originally but upgraded to the GE F-110
F 15 - 2 P&W F-100-PW-220 turbofans (25,000 lbs thrust each)
F 16 - Either 1 P&W F-100-PW-220 at 23,450 lb thrust or 1 GE F110-GE-100 at (27,600 lbs thrust)
FA 18 - GE-F404
F 22 - 2 P&W F119-PW-100 at 35,000 lbs thrust each
F 35 - 1 P&W F135 turbofan or the GE F136 at 35,000 lbs thrust each
F 101 - ???
F 111 - PW TF30 (first use of mixedflow afterburning turbofan engine)
F 117 - 2 GE F404-GE-F1D2 nonafterburning turbofans at 9,040 lbs of thrust each
F 86 - ???
A 7 - ???
A 10 - 2 GE TF34-GE-100 turbofans (interesting a high bypass Turbofan in a close airsupport airplane)
B 52 - I think originally the J57, now 8 P&W TF33-P-3 turbofans (17,000 lbs thrust each)
B 1 - 4 GE F101-GE-102 turbofans (30,780 lbs thrust each)
B 2 - 4 GE F118-GE-100 turbofans (17,300 lbs thrust each)
707 - 4 p&W TF33-PW-100 turbofans at 19,000 thrust each
727 - P&W JT8D ??? and GE CFM56-7 turbofans/Rolls equivalents
737 - 2 CFM56 high bypass turbofans
747 - GE CF6 turbofans at 56,700 lb thrust each
757 - ???
767 - ???
777 - GE90
AB 300 - ???
AB 320 - CFM56
MIG 25 Tumansky design
MIG 29 Tumanski design
Marage F1 Smecma ???
Saab something or other (there is also the new Grippen
SR 71 - P&W J58 (really the first mixed flow afterburning turbofan)
DC 10 - 3 GE CF6-50C2 at 52,500 lbs thrust each
MD 11 - Rolls Royce RB211 (triple spool turbofan)
MD 90 ???
T-37-the tweet- 1 Continental J69-T-25 turbojet (centrifugal compressor) 1025 lbs thrust
T38 - 2 GE J85-GE-5A afterburning turbojets at 2,900 lbs thrust each)
T43 - 2 P&W JT8D-9 turbofans

That's about all I can peel off the top of my head."

Hymee,

The mechanical losses for these axial and centrifugal compressors will be considerably smaller than those seen in the twin screw or roots blower designs. A first order approximation would be on the order of 1-2% of the maximum power. So that would only add another .2 to .3 Hp

Your airflow measurement is a nice number to have. I submitted much earlier in this thread or in another thread a theoretical airflow based on a 100% volumetric efficiency... this leads to a NA airflow at 9k rpm of 0.5306 lbm/sec. With the number you've added... the volumetric efficiency appears to be around

Sorry... hit the wrong button by accident.

So Volumetric eff at 9k rpm appears to be around 93.5%. Neat. The numbers I used for the airflow take into account the additional airflow due to the compression in the supercharger.

However, I still assumed a 100% volumetric efficiency. If we now took the new 93.5% number then airflow and power would drop potentially by as much as 6.5%. However, because of the additional air density... I think the volumetric efficiency would be nudged up a bit. Maybe into the 95% range???

Regards