X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: Received: from omr-a019e.mx.aol.com ([204.29.186.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2c1) with ESMTPS id 9505718 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:51:07 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.29.186.67; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com [172.29.27.208]) by omr-a019e.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 4A09D380008A for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:50:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from core-mdx07f.mail.aol.com (core-mdx07.mail.aol.com [10.76.9.16]) by mtaomg-mce02.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id D589538000081 for ; Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:50:48 -0500 (EST) Full-name: Lehanover Message-ID: <11f9328.38c30547.45e3d4c8@aol.com> Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2017 01:50:48 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Why use the P-Port? To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_11f9328.38c30547.45e3d4c8_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 9.7 sub 19 X-Originating-IP: [97.97.209.151] x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20150623; t=1488091849; bh=qUaGPLdsKl6lMlZeo7YirgWDHyiyZFTZshrC8egZljk=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=joienAv43xClMRKan36lNkjIg/DmL5F05kJGbIbv1eDYW+ZtslRJHEHx87cfLAU/W FHsM1C11Y9myqnKF+h5UPjO81tWiMGiYqwWyJ8aTa77G0I1p6aHC+tYX+f49sRdhDr uHacXHkX+/N+KXAJuE0+rWfG8QRdEvGkzOWGZ9Mk= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d1bd058b27ac81a6d --part1_11f9328.38c30547.45e3d4c8_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Much reduced intake manifold size and weight. Up to 250 HP available. Simple tuning. A 12-A side port can do 250 HP at 10,000 RPM. It can do 310 HP with a Pport. A 13-B side port can do 270 HP at 10,000 RPM and 330 HP as a Pport. Still more power than a Lycoming at 6,000 RPM. Lynn E. Hanover In a message dated 2/25/2017 11:38:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes: Why is the peripheral port rotary so relied upon in experimental aviation? Is this for technical reason(s) such as intake tuning or simplicity of implementation as compared to other known methods of porting that are capable of generating similar power levels? Does anyone have knowledge of successes with some of the other porting methods? Rick -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html --part1_11f9328.38c30547.45e3d4c8_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Much reduced intake manifold size and weight. Up to 250 HP avail= able.=20 Simple tuning.

A 12-A side port can do 250 HP at 10,000 RPM. It can do 310 HP with= a=20 Pport. A 13-B

side port can do 270 HP at 10,000 RPM and 330 HP as a Ppor= t.=20 Still more power than a Lycoming at 6,000 RPM.

Lynn E. Hanover

In a message dated 2/25/2017 11:38:37 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,=20 flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes:

Why is=20 the peripheral port rotary so relied upon in experimental aviation? = ; Is=20 this for technical reason(s) such as intake tuning or simplicity of=20 implementation as compared to other known methods of porting that are ca= pable=20 of generating similar power levels? Does anyone have knowledge of= =20 successes with some of the other porting=20 methods?

Rick

--
Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--part1_11f9328.38c30547.45e3d4c8_boundary--