X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Bill Bradburry" Received: from vms173021pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055793 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 19:34:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.173.21; envelope-from=bbradburry@verizon.net Received: from Desktop ([71.164.185.6]) by vms173021.mailsrvcs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.32.0 64bit (built Jul 16 2014)) with ESMTPA id <0NVV003T4IT02KS0@vms173021.mailsrvcs.net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:34:17 -0500 (CDT) X-CMAE-Score: 0 X-CMAE-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=J+9Xl1TS c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=20weQFHSdBTlwctzPCQ/Gw==:117 a=o1OHuDzbAAAA:8 a=oR5dmqMzAAAA:8 a=5lJygRwiOn0A:10 a=r77TgQKjGQsHNAKrUKIA:9 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=teqftKdIAAAA:8 a=5I7ZRDgBAAAA:20 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=JTWiVSpKCY2wrtpwBCsA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=dmpOll9eaLMA:10 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=9Wx_eFvMNrMIG_6QukcA:9 a=FFW0aAPXRT3PlMjR:21 a=gKO2Hq4RSVkA:10 a=UiCQ7L4-1S4A:10 a=hTZeC7Yk6K0A:10 a=frz4AuCg-hUA:10 To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-reply-to: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2015 18:34:22 -0500 Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01D1012E.CB8528C0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-index: AdEBHuCkEiR3kcHnTOeoPkCasx7o3AAOCvoQ X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6002.18463 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01D1012E.CB8528C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit If I understand the situation, and believe me, I probably don't..a tuned intake would give a turbo more power at a given boost pressure than it would have untuned at that same boost pressure. However, the benefit might not be worth the effort due to the small incremental difference. On the other hand, a P-port is never closed so there would be negligible reflected waves to use for tuning. The rotor apex seal slides by the opening of the port and slices off the fuel/air charge that is going to one rotor face and it starts to be directed to the other face. Think of the intake air column as a sausage that is being sliced off as the apex goes by the open port. Very little reflectivity to use for tuning. Or more likely, I could be wrong. Bill _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:39 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... One more question to throw into the mix. A friend is building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though compression and leak down tests remain to be done. He is now thinking to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go P-port. Is it true that there is no intake runner tuning for a turbo setup? Yes it is more complicated to go turbo (than peripheral), but there is also the advantages at altitude. So the extra question is: P-port or turbo? James R. Osborn rxcited@gmail.com On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry wrote: Christian, While you are doing that, you could also include some info on your pporting of the Renesis. How did you know where to bore the holes for proper timing and how did you seal the water jacket? I assume that you just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or something? Thanks, One of the other Bills _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... can you give details on your custom built hotdog with inox? baffling. Thanks Bill Schertz From: Christian And Tam Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... I would agree, yes it worked out to be allot more simpler running 2 x 2" runners than playing with 4 in my opinion and easier to manufactur etc From modifying my engine from a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 port intake I gained a good 30-40 hp and 15 k top end The noise also isn't that bad on my renises as I've attached a custom built hotdog underneath with inox baffling which works well Sent from my iPhone On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure wrote: Trying to ensure I have a complete knowledge before I make my decision, The P port as shown for the website is exactly what we are looking for. Straight forward power at high rpm. The noise is a factor of energy output which is the same. If I tune a 4 port runner system and get x amount of air into the engine I give y amount of fuel and I have z amount of power and engine exhaust/noise to handle. If I use a P port and get x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is the exact same z output. It was just easier to get x amount of air into the system. Or am I completely off base. On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson wrote: Bob, One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are almost always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just fine. Good balance and vibration control are the key to good idle. The engine won't make a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for an aircraft. The rotary makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine! Bill Jepson On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." wrote: You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this website. See bottom entry. http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm And it is loud!!! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jebl2pWaiWI Bob J. Rogers -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:33 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or not... I understand the benefits of P porting the engine. And I think I know the answer to my question but thought I'd verify. Looking for 180-200 hp. I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b. If the intake and exhaust are built right I should have no problem getting that power NA. If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it is just easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it is not by any means more fuel efficient? So therefore if I don't need the power I don't need to P port. Mark -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01D1012E.CB8528C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If I understand the situation, and = believe me, I probably don’t….a tuned intake would give a turbo more = power at a given boost pressure than it would have untuned at that same boost pressure.  However, the benefit might not be worth the effort due = to the small incremental difference.

On the other hand, a P-port is = never closed so there would be negligible reflected waves to use for = tuning.  The rotor apex seal slides by the opening of the port and slices off the = fuel/air charge that is going to one rotor face and it starts to be directed to = the other face.  Think of the intake air column as a sausage that is = being sliced off as the apex goes by the open port.  Very little = reflectivity to use for tuning.

 

Or more likely, I could be = wrong.

 

Bill

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October = 07, 2015 11:39 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = To P or not...

 

One more question to throw into the mix.  A friend is = building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though = compression and leak down tests remain to be done.  He is now thinking to go = turbo instead of tearing it down to go P-port.  Is it true that there is = no intake runner tuning for a turbo setup?  Yes it is more complicated = to go turbo (than peripheral), but there is also the advantages at = altitude.

 

So the extra question is:  P-port or = turbo?

 

James R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com =

 

On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

 

Christian,

 

While you are doing that, you could = also include some info on your pporting of the Renesis.  How did you know where = to bore the holes for proper timing and how did you seal the water jacket?  = I assume that you just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or = something?

 

Thanks,

One of the other Bills

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October = 07, 2015 9:04 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = To P or not...

 

can you give details on your custom built hotdog = with inox? baffling.

 

Thanks

Bill Schertz

 

Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...

 

I would agree, yes it worked out to be allot more = simpler running 2 x 2" runners than playing with 4 in my opinion and  = easier to manufactur etc

From modifying my engine from a not so good 6 port = intake to a simple 2 port intake I gained a good 30-40 hp and 15 k top end

The noise also isn't that bad on my renises as I've attached a custom built hotdog underneath with inox baffling which works = well



Sent from my iPhone


On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Trying to ensure I have a complete knowledge before = I make my decision,

 

The P port as shown for the website is exactly what = we are looking for. Straight forward power at high rpm.  The noise is a = factor of energy output which is the same. 

 

If I tune a 4 port runner system and get x amount = of air into the engine I give y amount of fuel and I have z amount of power and = engine exhaust/noise to handle.

 

If I use a P port and get x amount of air and give = y amount of fuel it is the exact same z output.  It was just easier = to get x amount of air into the system.

 

Or am I completely off base.

 

Bob,
One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are = almost always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just fine. Good = balance and vibration control are the key to good idle. The engine won't make a = lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for an aircraft. The rotary = makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine!

Bill Jepson

On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this website.  See bottom entry.   http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm  And it is loud!!!  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI

Bob J. Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or not...

I understand the benefits of P porting the engine.  And I think I = know the answer to my question but thought I'd verify.

Looking for 180-200 hp.  I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port = 13b.
If the intake and exhaust are built right I should have no problem = getting that power NA.

If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it = is just easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it = is not by any means more fuel efficient?

So therefore if I don't need the power I don't need to P port.

Mark


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



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

 

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01D1012E.CB8528C0--