From: "Christian And Tam" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.41; envelope-from=christamarmc@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] To P or not...
Message-Id: <D2134071-1233-41BE-BA97-9DCF4898D063@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:42:18 +1000
References: <list-8052653@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-8052653@logan.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

Hi mark

Just my 2 cents , I've been down both roads , standard 6 port renises and p p=
orting
P porting wins hands down
Simpler to build an intake to fit under the cowl, easier to inject, and deve=
lops more power , approximate go is now around the 220 hp and equivalent in a=
irframe to lycoming approx 200
Would recommend to anyone starting again not to muck around with multiport r=
unners just go p port

Cheers
Christian
Rv7

Sent from my iPhone

> On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:32 am, Mark McClure <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrot=
e:
>=20
> I understand the benefits of P porting the engine.  And I think I know the=
 answer to my question but thought I'd verify.
>=20
> Looking for 180-200 hp.  I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b.=20
> If the intake and exhaust are built right I should have no problem getting=
 that power NA. =20
>=20
> If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it i=
s just easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it is=
 not by any means more fuel efficient?
>=20
> So therefore if I don't need the power I don't need to P port.
>=20
> Mark
>=20
>=20
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List=
.html