X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "William Jepson" Received: from mail-ua0-f173.google.com ([209.85.217.173] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.14) with ESMTPS id 9439968 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:39:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.217.173; envelope-from=wrjjrs@gmail.com Received: by mail-ua0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 96so88784319uaq.3 for ; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 08:39:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=dRZ3CNdBYZekuWtRZIxWxI326M12/jTxKlBf4yukC7Y=; b=FqZPwrKRMa1ArWPPX0xn/OTtBNw9CVQj7pVHBFsKal4REb6oTjMNXSEmU7XvDgpvBo n0z0gjtRmL6IdYCrjAsmkrFkw4ZsaBkUuaE3R13SPV0gyc6gyU6kBfRTArBTJ4cs7xG/ Y6DJgsVbddQ6EwPPU2lzkHJCNB/FHcX4JktsN1H8/SGwMOkGObhw/IutwSqJr7/xNSwB 5bvs/CWJUpbbKbRF2a3jls6KPY9CKJHptoXcQ4HwixCYsVZ3CCbY6QBQZdtKPPOB6mPJ VWnybU/MqmcS7JSz2FomWYRQ2IgZdZpGZQNmju1GSfTih5sJUPtglzDTyUZBnrkCldFQ hyFw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=dRZ3CNdBYZekuWtRZIxWxI326M12/jTxKlBf4yukC7Y=; b=KQWNPs3/x3PXTFUMq1QshYMMTXtp9lPbjmjyqHterMzGKAliRAgZVZ/nSvE4s25//9 9H4cJJSZQNMaVGN+4/5Z0Q9cntDz1XkvSxUi6Vp08U+iWJ5Z53FgYNNnWBk44DoK7P74 udW4EWuCPWXKMdYd+4z16BGkMuwi4fRbJCUY6LebRbqLCsF346qE+HtTyWEqlKUVrSiV hy2mjdK0GhxlHTsSoTdpthqw7Kwnw8lXUggsCvDURu73LGUU68L8NIIwl50Q0WM+iO22 xRjpjCDZeRI5rMJEMoEd8DmMscWx+i2Zc4Zo4nnSQa88UKAQnq8e70VM9JvFjVe2ZgxQ Y8hw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l7jIaMgsfcymUevxw7jltJ0wfw4HIdTKbEiI3XoWrYhpOlNdt8ZFjPrvgqT5LawMCtbyWPP/OQNOxGAA== X-Received: by 10.159.40.101 with SMTP id c92mr6967839uac.111.1486485523756; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.56.18 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:38:43 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 08:38:43 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] General Rotary Porting url & PSRU To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c0480da9b80e20547f3619f --94eb2c0480da9b80e20547f3619f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Richard, First, the Peripheral port rotaries are NOT narrow band engines. The P-port rotary we been running on the test stand makes more power than a side port, at a lower RPM than a similar side port. It also idles at 1200 engine RPM with no problem. The only reason the cars aren't peripheral port is that the p-port engine makes less torque at 20% than the side port and the cars all run down there. I have have long claimed that the rotary makes a better airplane engine than a car engine! Very few people are running the engine in their planes at less than 40% power. Even then the P-port is fine you just can't port it for max power at 10,000 RPM. If you port for 6-7K the rotary is very flexible. We have been reluctant to show this until the engine is flying in that airplane but I'm including a link showing what I'm talking about. This is the engine on the aircraft dyno. This video was made while tuning the airflow performance aircraft FI so the engine isn't even at its best yet. This small port engine is running through a muffler designed to fit under the cowl of an RV-3! It tested in this configuration to 185 HP at 6400 engine RPM. We put a larger muffler that would work in a bigger plane and got 195 HP. The engine has hours on the dyno but the proof is really when it's flying. Bill www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfreUJt-Fsk&t=31s On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Richard Van Camp < flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote: > I forgot about this reference. I located it again over the weekend. > > http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm > > > Charlie, you are rigorously correct in that I stated peripheral porting I > overuse this term because this is what I read referenced in the rotary > aviation use discussions. If this reference is a sound technical reference > I see no reason why anyone would want to use peripheral porting in aviation > applications. I realize there may be issues I do not yet understand but, > engineering a "narrowband" engine does not appear to be useful for my > aircraft application (a 4-place taildragger). I suspect the "Extend" port > to be a better choice for me yet, the "Mild" may also work. Even with > this, I do not care for the slight decrease in torque below 4000 rpm. Has > anyone ever seen any of these side ports referenced in aviation > applications? > > I saw Nel's response and looked at the www.rotapower.eu to locate > information regarding the PSRU. Unfortunately, I found nothing. I know of > Paul Moller and have for several years. He has some good ideas but, I > would like to see these come to fruition to a greater degree. The need for > funds gets in the way of accomplishments. > > Rick > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net: > 81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > --94eb2c0480da9b80e20547f3619f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Richard,
First, the Peripheral port rotaries are NOT n= arrow band engines. The P-port rotary we =C2=A0been running on the test sta= nd makes more power than a side port, at a lower RPM than a similar side po= rt. It also idles at 1200 engine RPM with no problem. The only reason the c= ars aren't peripheral port is that the p-port engine makes less torque = at 20% than the side port and the cars all run down there. I have have long= claimed that the rotary makes a better airplane engine than a car engine! = Very few people are running the engine in their planes at less than 40% pow= er. Even then the P-port is fine you just can't port it for max power a= t 10,000 RPM. If you port for 6-7K the rotary is very flexible. We have bee= n reluctant to show this until the engine is flying in that airplane but I&= #39;m including a link showing what I'm talking about. This is the engi= ne on the aircraft dyno. This video was made while tuning the airflow perfo= rmance aircraft FI so the engine isn't even at its best yet. This small= port engine is running through a muffler designed to fit under the cowl of= an RV-3! It tested in this configuration to 185 HP at 6400 engine RPM. We = put a larger muffler that would work in a bigger plane and got 195 HP. The = engine has hours on the dyno but the proof is really when it's flying.= =C2=A0
Bill


On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Richard Van Camp <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
I forgot about this reference.=C2=A0 I located it again over = the weekend.

http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm


Charlie, you are rigorously correct in that I stated peripheral porting I o= veruse this term because this is what I read referenced in the rotary aviat= ion use discussions.=C2=A0 If this reference is a sound technical reference= I see no reason why anyone would want to use peripheral porting in aviatio= n applications.=C2=A0 I realize there may be issues I do not yet understand= but, engineering a "narrowband" engine does not appear to be use= ful for my aircraft application (a 4-place taildragger).=C2=A0 I suspect th= e "Extend" port to be a better choice for me yet, the "Mild&= quot; may also work.=C2=A0 Even with this, I do not care for the slight dec= rease in torque below 4000 rpm.=C2=A0 Has anyone ever seen any of these sid= e ports referenced in aviation applications?

I saw Nel's response and looked at the www.rotapower.eu to locate inf= ormation regarding the PSRU.=C2=A0 Unfortunately, I found nothing.=C2=A0 I = know of Paul Moller and have for several years.=C2=A0 He has some good idea= s but, I would like to see these come to fruition to a greater degree.=C2= =A0 The need for funds gets in the way of accomplishments.

Rick

--
Homepage:=C2=A0 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0 =C2=A0http://mail= .lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--94eb2c0480da9b80e20547f3619f--