X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3839278 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:58:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090906215734920.HHIW8566@cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com> for ; Sun, 6 Sep 2009 21:57:34 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: To P or Not to P - port that is: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 17:56:14 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA2F1B.53DF5C50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcovJVFuFe9ZwDWBT+ueUDZnbcJ9VgAFEQMg Message-Id: <20090906215734920.HHIW8566@cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA2F1B.53DF5C50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While there is no question that P porting will provide more power and its reputation for poor idle (whether deserved or not) at low rpm does not affect its suitability for our use, I think there are other considerations. IF you can buy a properly make P port or have the knowledge and machinery to do it yourself correctly , it might be well worth doing. However, I have found that approaches designed from max power out put at high rpm may not always be compatible with longevity or reliability, factors of most importance in aircraft - so you need to check into that. I tried a Rotary Racing manifold early on and while it was probably great for a rotary turning 9000+ rpm, it really performed poorly at 5000-6000 rpm. Once I replaced it with an intake design from my engine's actual operating range - power improved considerably. I, for one, found that building my own aircraft and converting a pretty much stock 13B for aircraft use was about all I could handle back almost 15 years ago. With the knowledge on this list that is now pretty much a straight forward thing - but still a lot of work. I fly a 13B rotated 90 deg so that the Plugs are UP - so I am certainly not against experimenting with the rotary engine. But, I have know of several folks who tried P porting own their own and ran into a much bigger challenge than they had anticipated. For one thing, it turns out the best P port parameters for aircraft use are different than that used by the all-out racers. A second thing is some folks have run into challenges in sealing the coolant galley after cutting the hole in the rotor housing, the interface to the steel sheath inside the rotor housing also needs to be done correctly as well. All challenges that can be overcome - but require time and $$. So can it be done? - certainly it can be done. Is it the best approach for what you have in mind - only you can decide that. But, the more different you are from the stock engine the more benefit and the more disadvantage you will encounter. While some early experimenters - Everret Hatch comes to mind (whose project was sold to PowerSport) who put one in an Rv-4 that Allen Tole? Flew to a screaming take off and climb out at Sun & Fun - before blowing a bearing in the PSRU (NOT a RWS PSRU)- showed some initial promises for the P port in aircraft - But, I have not seen any follow up or growth in that area for aircraft. The real question is the benefit worth the extra effort - I think many have decided the stock engine perhaps with turbo is the way to go. I think the P port is an elegant approach to getting more power - but, more of a challenge than I'm interested in - and it would not do a thing for me given the way I fly. Naturally the flight environment and needs of others will vary from my requirements. Bill Jepson already mentioned the simplification of the intake (at least space wise) of the intake. It is also the lightest modification you can make to produce that kind of power as it should end up weighing a bit less than a stock 13B and certainly less than a 13B with a Turbo. So if you are up to the challenge - go for it, but be aware it is a challenge. Best Regards Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of WRJJRS@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:07 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Gonzalo, Sorry to be contrary, but in my opinion the ONLY way to go for a flying rotary is P-port. All of the original Power Sport engines (the Everette Hatch P.S.) ran P-ports. The manifolding for a P-port engine is vastly easier. In fact Hatch and Steve Beckham built several engines with P-ports that even ran reverse rotation so they could get proper propeller rotation with some gearboxes. You can even P-port an Renesis and it still works. The reason that Mazda isn't P-porting their race cars has nothing to do with if P-porting is better, it is racing organizations requirements. The reason for the side port Renesis is for emissions and low RPM fuel economy. Those are areas that are only important in a CAR. The typical aircraft runs 50% to 90% ALL THE TIME and P-ports are much better at mid to high RPMS. The Mazda Le Mans winning engine used P-ports and they were running with a fuel economy formula. (the fuel was limited) For high output P-ports just work better. Bill Jepson Gonzalo, A lot of people talk about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is doing it with a rotary that they plan to fly behind. If it was such a good thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their cars. Instead they are going away even from the peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. If 200 HP will do it for you the Renesis is the way to go. This process of putting an alternative engine in a plane is hard enough without violating the KISS principle. Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no P-Port. Bill B _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Gonzalo, I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it did. All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. _____ __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA2F1B.53DF5C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

While there is no question that P = porting will provide more power and its reputation for poor idle (whether = deserved or not) at low rpm  does not affect its suitability for our use, I = think there are other considerations.  IF you can buy a properly make P = port or have the knowledge and machinery to do it yourself correctly , it might = be well worth doing.  However, I have found that approaches  designed = from max power out put at high rpm may not always be compatible with = longevity or reliability, factors of most importance in aircraft – so you need = to check into that.  I tried a Rotary Racing manifold early on and = while it was probably great for a rotary turning 9000+ rpm, it really performed = poorly at 5000-6000 rpm.  Once I replaced it with an intake design from my = engine’s actual operating range – power improved = considerably.

 

I, for one, found that building my = own aircraft and converting a pretty much stock 13B for aircraft use was = about all I could handle back almost 15 years ago.  With the knowledge on = this list that is now pretty much a straight forward thing - but still a lot of = work.  I fly a 13B rotated 90 deg so that the Plugs are UP – so I am = certainly not against experimenting with the rotary engine. =

 

But, I have know of several folks = who tried  P porting own their own and ran into a much bigger challenge = than they had anticipated.  For one thing, it turns out the best P port parameters for aircraft use are different than that used by the all-out racers.  A second thing is some folks have run into challenges in = sealing the coolant galley after cutting the hole in the rotor housing, the = interface to the steel sheath inside the rotor housing also needs to be done = correctly as well.  All challenges that can be overcome – but require time = and $$.

 

So can it be done? – = certainly it can be done. Is it the best approach for what you have in mind – = only you can decide that.   But, the more different you are from the = stock engine the more benefit and the more disadvantage you will = encounter.  While some early experimenters – Everret Hatch comes to mind = (whose project was sold to PowerSport) who put one in an Rv-4 that Allen Tole? = Flew to a screaming take off and climb out at Sun & Fun – before = blowing a bearing in the PSRU (NOT a RWS PSRU)- showed some initial promises for = the P port in aircraft – But, I have not seen any follow up or growth in = that area for aircraft.

 

The real question is the benefit = worth the extra effort – I think many have decided the stock engine perhaps = with turbo is the way to go.  I think the P port is an elegant approach = to getting more power – but, more of a challenge than I’m = interested in – and it would not do a thing for me given the way I fly.  Naturally the flight environment and needs of others will vary from my requirements. 

 

Bill Jepson already mentioned the simplification of the intake (at least space wise) of the intake.  = It is also the lightest modification you can make to produce that kind of = power as it should  end up weighing a bit less than a stock 13B and certainly = less than a 13B with a Turbo.

 

So if you are up to the challenge = – go for it, but be aware it is a challenge.

 

Best = Regards

 

Ed

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of WRJJRS@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September = 06, 2009 3:07 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

Gonzalo,

Sorry to be contrary, but in my = opinion the ONLY way to go for a flying rotary is P-port. All of the original = Power Sport engines (the Everette Hatch P.S.) ran P-ports. The manifolding for = a P-port engine is vastly easier. In fact Hatch and Steve Beckham built = several engines with P-ports that even ran reverse rotation so they could get = proper propeller rotation with some gearboxes. You can even P-port an Renesis = and it still works. The reason that Mazda isn't P-porting their race cars has = nothing to do with if P-porting is better, it is racing organizations = requirements. The reason for the side port Renesis is for emissions and low RPM fuel = economy. Those are areas that are only important in a CAR. The typical aircraft = runs 50% to 90% ALL THE TIME and P-ports are much better at mid to high RPMS. The = Mazda Le Mans winning engine used P-ports and they were running with a fuel = economy formula. (the fuel was limited) For high output P-ports just work = better.

Bill = Jepson

Gonzalo,

A lot of people talk about peripheral porting rotaries but = nobody is doing it with a rotary that they plan to fly behind.  If it was = such a good thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their cars.  Instead they are = going away even from the peripheral port for the exhaust with the = Renesis. 

If 200 HP will do it for you the Renesis is the way to = go.  This process of putting an alternative engine in a plane is hard enough = without violating the KISS = principle.

Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no = P-Port.

Bill B

 

From: = Rotary motors in = aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Sunday, August 23, = 2009 5:57 PM
To: = Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two?

 

Gonzalo,

I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't = think it did. All turbo 13B's require low compression = rotors.

 

=

 

=



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA2F1B.53DF5C50--