Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #24330
From: George Lendich <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: PP debate was Re: Single PP HP?
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:27:05 +1000
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
 
Ho-dy, ho, ho, ho, - there Rusty!
 
While Lynn seems to love PP for racing, I'm not sure I've seen him state that he thinks it's the best way to go for aircraft.  How about it Lynn, for, or against PP for aircraft use?  
 
Either side port (Bridgeport) or Pport will work just fine for aircraft use.
 
 This is your lucky day. I have a tube frame with a first Gen body and a factory Pport engine. It has a Weaver Brothers external pressure pump, but the front iron is intact, so you could go back to the stock pump if you like. It has a trans but no rear end. Needs a Speedway or similar quickchange. A nice trailer is included.
 
The Pport has shorter intake timing than the "J" Bridgeport engine. It idles much slower than the Bridgeport engine and has power a bit lower in the RPM range than the Bridgeport.
It is not difficult to drive around the paddock with a tall first gear. The Bridgeport is a nasty mess to drive around, and has around 3 HP until it get wound up a bit.The Pport is also still making power right through 10,000 RPM if that ever comes up. This is a 12-A Pport with about 300 HP at 10,000.
 
The home built 13B Pport could be much better. It is just too easy to build. As I pointed out with the 12A data at 7,500 212 HP and that engine has the intake tuned to give best power at 9,400 RPM. Those are real Ohio HP. Not those little California HP used to sell race engines.
 
A well done 13B Pport with very mild exhaust work should have 230 to 250 continuous at 7,500 RPM. Plan fuel pickups for a 45 degree climb angle.
 
If you only need 220 HP then the side port is quick and easy also.
 
Lynn E. Hanover
 
 
 
 
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster