Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 822762 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:50:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net Received: from [65.176.176.36] (helo=earthlink.net) by smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DFGML-00084K-Hq for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:50:10 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer; b=SwhONvvT1AqLdugx814OGAlAPmiv28ZxZcDO00VToBtFxcx4LY3XAWf58lrJcX+h; Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:51:30 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RX8 P-Port Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2-411903943 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Jerry Hey To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <10B8DD60-9E28-11D9-8E5F-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-ELNK-Trace: 8104856d7830ec6b1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79211297c0eab5a11cc33fe513db58c327350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.176.176.36 --Apple-Mail-2-411903943 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Rusty, The p port sucks in a lot more air than does the side port. =20= I don't know what the stock timing is so I don't know how much is=20 timing related. I think it just a much more efficient to pulling air=20= in directly than through a convoluted passage through the side housing.=20= Jerry On Saturday, March 26, 2005, at 08:56 AM, Russell Duffy wrote: > That is exactly what will happen. The p port will deliver more HP at=20= > the same RPM.=A0 > =A0 > Will this strictly be due to=A0having a larger intake port,=A0or is it = due=20 > to timing?=A0 > =A0 > I personally can't wait to see=A0Renesis engines=A0running with some=20= > porting work on the stock ports.=A0 =46rom the pics I've seen, the = factory=20 > leaves them really ugly.=A0 I bet once they're smoothed out, and = opened=20 > up some, it will be a killer engine.=A0=A0 I also think there will be = even=20 > less reason to consider PP on the Renesis, than on the 13B.=A0 Heck, = the=20 > more I look at it, the more I (almost) wish I had just made the change=20= > to Renesis for the RV-3.=A0 > =A0 > Cheers, > Rusty (fiberglass pieces finally coming together today) --Apple-Mail-2-411903943 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 Rusty, The p port sucks in a lot more air than does the side port.=20 I don't know what the stock timing is so I don't know how much is timing related. I think it just a much more efficient to pulling air in directly than through a convoluted passage through the side housing. Jerry On Saturday, March 26, 2005, at 08:56 AM, Russell Duffy wrote: That is exactly what will happen. The p port will deliver more HP at the same = RPM.ArialFFFF,0000,0000=A0= =A0 ArialFFFF,0000,0000Will this strictly be due to=A0having a larger intake port,=A0or is it due to timing?=A0 =A0 ArialFFFF,0000,0000I personally can't wait to see=A0Renesis engines=A0running with some = porting work on the stock ports.=A0 =46rom the pics I've seen, the factory = leaves them really ugly.=A0 I bet once they're smoothed out, and opened up some, it will be a killer engine.=A0=A0 I also think there will be even less reason to consider PP on the Renesis, than on the 13B.=A0 Heck, the more I look at it, the more I (almost) wish I had just made the change to Renesis for the RV-3.=A0 =A0 = ArialFFFF,0000,0000Cheers= , = ArialFFFF,0000,0000Rusty (fiberglass pieces finally coming together today) = --Apple-Mail-2-411903943--