X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "William Jepson" Received: from mail-vk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.213.47] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055787 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:04:21 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.47; envelope-from=wrjjrs@gmail.com Received: by vkfp126 with SMTP id p126so22052193vkf.3 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=xzvEl+UHGbO9typUfxsjSg3PrmfzM8jucmwJox46a8w=; b=nMRHyV9n6/0uSaIIIyX1WQLNzrAZDUzYc40HXt7907uoY+EIbDQeaTg3ccyszppb2U YRrFpvU2lnwndw1jQ9PxXFYmUVQD3sbkfe2NXHSkxhWMHBI8TwI0UmmgPWJ+DxLFED3x +wlij73Mnc0/wONUmYPZeprlCTaXP5xTMH1IYDROtk1LaJcs0LoYZg9qy7tyLIOBGCCG M9qUO6s7otao62YAi4LKF0KLcSmLgAB7FzJau7TmLEpFqtTsuO316EslDGJq3GELLqZU nlsWRiAvuV/EZfglkv3Lzo5tQkPDfpIzeKWB2Clf88Ti/5woPeLJnN3TMdjO7kV1CAGC eV0w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.147.129 with SMTP id v123mr3102887vkd.23.1444262627208; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.46.129 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.46.129 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:03:47 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140feb6db720b05218c98f9 --001a1140feb6db720b05218c98f9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, You couldn't be more incorrect. The P port is VERY tuneable. Witness the LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes to improve driveability across the rev range. You just need to alter your thinking a bit. The rotor IS THE VALVE. When in the intake phase tuning length is very effective. A turbo works similarly, but length isn't as critical. Obstruction is more important in the turbo version. If the path is clean and free of sharp corners the turbo doesn't work as hard and doesn't heat the intake charge as much. Less need for an intercooler. Bill Jepson On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" wrote: > If I understand the situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t= =E2=80=A6.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 mig= ht > 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 o= ne > 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 an= d > leak down tests remain to be done. He is now thinking to go turbo instea= d > of tearing it down to go P-port. Is it true that there is no intake runn= er > 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 outp= ut > 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/noi= se > 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=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 th= e > 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 gettin= g > 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 i= t > 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 > > > --001a1140feb6db720b05218c98f9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Bill,
You couldn't be more incorrect. The P port is VERY tuneable. Witness th= e LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes to improve driveability acro= ss the rev range. You just need to alter your thinking a bit. The rotor IS = THE VALVE. When in the intake phase tuning length is very effective. A turb= o works similarly, but length isn't as critical. Obstruction is more im= portant in the turbo version. If the path is clean and free of sharp corner= s the turbo doesn't work as hard and doesn't heat the intake charge= as much. Less need for an intercooler.

Bill Jepson

On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry&quo= t; <flyrotary@lancaironli= ne.net> wrote:

If I understand th= e situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=A6.a tuned intake would give a turbo mor= e power at a given boost pressure than it would have untuned at that same boost pressure.=C2=A0 However, the benefit might not be worth the effort due to t= he small incremental difference.

On the other hand,= a P-port is never closed so there would be negligible reflected waves to use for tuning.=C2= =A0 The rotor apex seal slides by the opening of the port and slices off the fuel/a= ir charge that is going to one rotor face and it starts to be directed to the other face.=C2=A0 Think of the intake air column as a sausage that is being sliced off as the apex goes by the open port.=C2=A0 Very little reflectivit= y to use for tuning.

=C2=A0

Or more likely, I = could be wrong.

=C2=A0

Bill

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

One more question to throw into the mix.=C2=A0 A fri= end is building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though compres= sion and leak down tests remain to be done.=C2=A0 He is now thinking to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go P-port.=C2=A0 Is it true that there is no intake runner tuning for a turbo setup?=C2=A0 Yes it is more complicated to= go turbo (than peripheral), but there is also the advantages at altitude.

=C2=A0

So the extra question is: =C2=A0P-port or turbo?<= /u>

=C2=A0

James R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Christian,<= u>

=C2=A0

While you are doin= g that, you could also include some info on your pporting of the Renesis.=C2=A0 How did you know where to = bore the holes for proper timing and how did you seal the water jacket?=C2=A0 I assume that you just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or somethin= g?

=C2=A0

Thanks,<= /u>

One of the other B= ills

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

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

=C2=A0

Thanks

Bill Schertz

=C2=A0<= u>

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

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

=C2=A0

I would agree, yes it worked out to be a= llot more simpler running 2 x 2" runners than playing with 4 in my opinion and=C2=A0 eas= ier to manufactur etc

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

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



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 knowl= edge before I make my decision,

=C2=A0

The P port as shown for the website is e= xactly what we are looking for. Straight forward power at high rpm.=C2=A0 The noise is a facto= r of energy output which is the same.=C2=A0 <= u>

=C2=A0

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 en= gine exhaust/noise to handle.

=C2=A0

If I use a P port and get x amount of ai= r and give y amount of fuel it is the exact same z output.=C2=A0 It was just easier to g= et x amount of air into the system.

=C2=A0

Or am I completely off base.

= =C2=A0


On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Bob,
One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are al= most always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just fine. Good bala= nce 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 m= akes a better aircraft engine than a car engine!

Bill Jepson<= u>

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

You should read the description of the e= ffects of P-porting at this website.=C2=A0 See bottom entry.=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://www.mazdaro= tary.net/porting.htm=C2=A0 And it is loud!!!=C2=A0 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI<= /a>

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.=C2=A0 And I think I know= the answer to my question but thought I'd verify.

Looking for 180-200 hp.=C2=A0 I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b.<= br> 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:=C2=A0 htt= p://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:= 81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



--
Homepage:=C2=A0 htt= p://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:=C2=A0=C2=A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:= 81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= /p>

=C2=A0

--001a1140feb6db720b05218c98f9--