X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.199] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTPS id 1010672 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:19:15 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.199; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d211-31-107-82.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.31.107.82]) by mail18.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j5MNIP8G032500 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:18:26 +1000 Message-ID: <008601c57780$b6aa71f0$526b1fd3@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: PP debate was Re: Single PP HP? Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:18:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0083_01C577D4.880ECA90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C577D4.880ECA90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I totally agree Bill! George ( down under) I guess this would be true, but when you eliminate timing overlap, = don't you also eliminate most of the power advantage? =20 NO, it does not. Every piston engine has overlap, with far worse = consequences as the valves are very close together. It just seems like a mild mannered PP is a waste of time, UNLESS it's = the only means to an end, such as in Richard and George's custom side = plated production. Don't forget that a good manifold will be needed on the renesis as = well. A BAD manifold can cost as much power on a side ported engine as a = PP. The reason for the no overlap side port engine is SMOG. The lack of = overlap, and the charge dilution contributes less to power. The reason = the renesis makes good power is the size of the side ports. Look at the = complexity of the manifold on the RX-8. I highly respect Tracy's work, = which is designing a simpler means of converting the engines available = without extensive modification. My personal guess is that if Tracy = applied his knowledge of the induction system and EFI to a PP engine He = would blow away the renesis. This might not be a result he could sell to = all of his customers though. Run your renesis Rusty, I'm sure you will = be happy with it. I am just saying that I believe your desire for a high = power single rotor could be met easier with the PP. That doesn't mean = that the PP is the only way to get there. Bill Jepson ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C577D4.880ECA90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I totally agree Bill!

George ( down under)

I guess this would be true, but when you = eliminate=20 timing overlap, don't you also eliminate most of the power = advantage? =20

NO, it does not. Every piston engine has = overlap,=20 with far worse consequences as the valves are very close=20 together.

It just seems like a mild mannered = PP is a waste=20 of time, UNLESS it's the only means to an end, such as in Richard and = George's=20 custom side plated production.

Don't forget that a good manifold will be = needed on=20 the renesis as well. A BAD manifold can cost as much power on a side = ported=20 engine as a PP. The reason for the no overlap side port engine is = SMOG. The=20 lack of overlap, and the charge dilution contributes less to power. = The reason=20 the renesis makes good power is the size of the side ports. Look at = the=20 complexity of the manifold on the RX-8. I highly respect Tracy's = work,=20 which is designing a simpler means of converting the engines available = without=20 extensive modification. My personal guess is that if Tracy applied his = knowledge of the induction system and EFI to a PP engine He would blow = away=20 the renesis. This might not be a result he could sell to all of his = customers=20 though. Run your renesis Rusty, I'm sure you will be happy with it. I = am just=20 saying that I believe your desire for a high power single rotor could = be=20 met easier with the PP. That doesn't mean that the PP is the only = way to=20 get there.

Bill = Jepson

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01C577D4.880ECA90--