X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2042468 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 May 2007 17:56:51 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-103-061.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.103.61]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l4DLuExl023970 for ; Sun, 13 May 2007 17:56:14 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <003901c795a9$be92c590$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 240Hp? Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 17:57:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01C79588.372B6470" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C79588.372B6470 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, thanks, Jerry, if indeed it was at 7500 rpm then that sounds more = realistic to me. Yes, 215 at 6000-6500 rpm sounds realistic as well. = Now if I weren't such an tightwad, I would enjoy burning 20 GPH to make = that kind of power, but as it is I throttle back to 8 -9 GPH for the = vast majority of my flight - so I have to ask myself, if I am not racing = ( which I am not) do I really need that kind of power for my airframe = and the answer keeps coming back - not really, and not for that price. =20 Ed =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Jerry Hey=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:53 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 240Hp? The report I read a long time ago stated the rpm to be 7500 not 6000. = It did not mean much to me since it was with a carb and Mazda Trix's = intake manifold. I would think 215 hp at 6400 rpm (same as = PowerSport) would make most people very happy. I can see no reason why = it cannot be easily achieved. Extrapolate from there to 7500 rpm. = Jerry On May 13, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: I'm inclinded to agree, Tracy. I believe PowerSport claimed 215Hp = for their P port installation - which appears realist. In fact, = assuming 100% Ve and a best power A/F ratio of 12.65 it looks like you = would need to turn over 7500 rpm to get 240 HP. =20 You can further enrich the mixture and pick up some additional HP, = and perhaps get a Ve greater than 100% with some induction/exhaust = tunning, but still seems a bit much to get 240HP at 6000rpm without = forced induction. =20 I also found this message fragment regarding the dyno test, I = presume that Mazdrix/Lamar will put this mod into production given the = potential market for it. "Mazdatrix recently dyno=92d a N/A peripheral-ported 13B for Paul = Lamar at 250hp @ 6000rpm, running a carburetor. That is an easy = 125hp/rotor, and 250 hp from a 195# engine." In my research, I pulled up the data on the 4 rotor race engine that = Mazda was so sucessful with which used a PP and slide throttle (similar = in concept to Paul's) and adjustable telescoping inlets to tune the = inlet to the engine rpm. This engine also had 3 spark plugs per housing = and 10:1 compression rotors.=20 The attached graph (apologize for its quality - but, best I could = do) shows that at 6000 rpm (power oriented settings rather than fuel = efficient settings), the engine produced a total of around 360KW which = equates to around 482 HP. So given 4 rotors are producing that it would = equate to 482/4 =3D 120.5 HP/ Rotor.=20 Assuming it scales linearly - then 2 rotors should give 241 HP at = 6000 rpm. Interesting that Paul's engine does better at 250 Hp than = produced by the Mazda racing team without the 3 spark plugs, telescoping = inlets or 10:1 compression rotor. Humm, Perhaps the racing teams = should consider hiring Paul. That said, unless you have/know the actually conditions under which = the dyno test is being done and the points the data is taken at, there = is simply a lot of room for "interpretation". =20 Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tracy Crook=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:02 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question Outstanding is right. It's so outstanding that I tend to put it = in the same category as the other info he has dispensed (I.e., smoke). = I could be wrong though. All things being equal, the P Port motor = should make more power than the sideport engine. Just not sure it is = THAT much more. Everet Hatch was able to make a little over 210 HP at = 6000 with carefully tuned long p-port runners after much R&D. I do = believe those numbers. Tracy=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Lehanover@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:49 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:20:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, = atlasyts@bellsouth.net writes: 240HP at 6000 RPM.=20 That is outstanding HP, even on a California dyno. Any port = pictures or porting open and close figures?=20 Sounds like the one to replicate. A typical Weber intake system = from a race shop would be quite short. Not ideal for 6,000 RPM. Better = at 9,500 to 10,000 RPM, looking for 335 HP. Lynn E. Hanover=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ See what's free at AOL.com.=20 <4 Roto Powers.jpg> -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html Jerry Hey STOL 701 ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C79588.372B6470 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ah, thanks, Jerry, if indeed it was at 7500 rpm = then that=20 sounds more realistic to me.  Yes, 215 at 6000-6500 rpm sounds = realistic as=20 well.  Now if I weren't such an tightwad, I would enjoy = burning=20 20 GPH to make that kind of power, but as it is I throttle back to = 8 -9 GPH=20 for the vast majority of my flight - so I have to ask myself, if I am = not racing=20 ( which I am not) do I really need that kind of power for my airframe = and the=20 answer keeps coming back - not really, and not for that=20 price.  
 
Ed 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Jerry=20 Hey
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 3:53 = PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = 240Hp?

The report I read a long time ago stated the rpm to be = 7500 not=20 6000. It did not mean much to me since it was with a carb and Mazda = Trix's=20 intake manifold.     I would think 215 hp at 6400 rpm = (same as=20 PowerSport) would make most people very happy.   I can see no = reason why=20 it cannot be easily achieved.  Extrapolate from there to 7500 = rpm.  =20  Jerry


On May 13, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Ed Anderson wrote:
 

I'm inclinded to agree, = Tracy.  I believe=20 PowerSport claimed 215Hp for their P port installation - which = appears=20 realist.    In fact, assuming 100% Ve and a best = power=20 A/F ratio of 12.65 it looks like you would need to turn over = 7500=20 rpm   to get 240 HP. 
 
You can further enrich the mixture = and pick up=20 some additional HP, and perhaps get a Ve greater than 100% with some = induction/exhaust tunning, but still seems a bit much to get 240HP = at=20 6000rpm without forced induction. 
 
I also found this message fragment = regarding=20 the dyno test, I presume that Mazdrix/Lamar will put this mod = into=20 production given the potential market for it.
 
"Mazdatrix recently dyno=92d a N/A=20 peripheral-ported 13B for Paul Lamar at 250hp @ 6000rpm, running a=20 carburetor.  That is an easy 125hp/rotor, and 250 hp from a = 195#=20 engine."
 
 
In my research, I pulled up the = data on the 4=20 rotor race engine that Mazda was so sucessful with which used a PP = and slide=20 throttle (similar in concept to Paul's) and adjustable =  telescoping=20 inlets to tune the inlet to the engine rpm.  This engine = also had=20 3 spark plugs per housing and 10:1 compression = rotors. 
 
 The attached graph (apologize = for its=20 quality - but, best I could do)  shows that at 6000 rpm (power = oriented=20 settings rather than fuel efficient settings), the engine produced a = total=20 of around 360KW which equates to around 482 HP.  So given 4 = rotors are=20 producing that it would equate to 482/4 =3D 120.5  HP/=20 Rotor. 
 
 Assuming it scales linearly - = then 2=20 rotors should give 241 HP at 6000 rpm.  Interesting = that Paul's=20  engine does better at 250 Hp than  produced by the Mazda = racing=20 team without the 3 spark plugs, telescoping inlets or 10:1 = compression=20 rotor.  Humm,  Perhaps the racing teams should = consider=20 hiring Paul.
 
That said, unless you have/know =  the=20 actually conditions under which the dyno test is being done and the = points=20 the data is taken at, there is simply  a lot of room for=20 "interpretation".  
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Tracy = Crook=20
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 = 12:02=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = EC2 smoke=20 question

Outstanding is right.  It's so outstanding that I tend = to put it=20 in the same category as the other info he has dispensed  = (I.e.,=20 smoke).   I could be wrong though.  All things = being equal,=20 the P Port motor should make more power than the sideport = engine. =20 Just not sure it is THAT much more.  Everet Hatch was able to = make a=20 little over 210 HP at 6000 with carefully tuned long p-port = runners after=20 much R&D.  I do believe those numbers.
 
 
Tracy
----- Original Message ----- =
From: Lehanover@aol.com
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Saturday, May 12, = 2007 9:49=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = EC2 smoke=20 question

In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:20:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight = Time, atlasyts@bellsouth.net=20 writes:
240HP at 6000 RPM.=20
 
That is outstanding HP, even on a California dyno. Any port = pictures or porting open and close figures?
 
 Sounds like the one to replicate. A typical Weber = intake=20 system from a race shop would be quite short. Not ideal for = 6,000 RPM.=20 Better at 9,500 to 10,000 RPM,
looking for 335 HP.
 
Lynn E. Hanover 



See what's free at AOL.com.=20
<4 Roto Powers.jpg>
--
Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

Jerry Hey STOL 701


------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C79588.372B6470--