X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "William Jepson" Received: from mail-vk0-f48.google.com ([209.85.213.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055856 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:46:41 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.48; envelope-from=wrjjrs@gmail.com Received: by vkat63 with SMTP id t63so22473395vka.1 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:46:07 -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=9IHtdGZLZdp8c/TZV+iRGkSeDIUzaSd+CvaS16QhpY4=; b=HkLvhr+k9ulKImtYH1Wq6mInvtEDtu9KfqQtak3IPBEHEhG2mdJnJd95yg9B6o9PZ+ RyOnMCplpQkeHVoyPPXR6wM+O5T+U5AouvNTOd7HoytkDx0f8Dy3vWPeIGSGjxsKkII1 N/em2ApbO024X/4DJgpyWuJZIF0nJI1OwmtXlutFl7eMIlr3GTIoCjAIRNVZimomCqWV KvpIMJk8wvPVM0kfRNU3G3h8h0oUKwhmV8WEGNRJbcrWTXTaq82xgN51AGd2Dcd5C+6R jKraRKD8vH024tSxRvkAUqAqn7xXRFuDit2GdYUrrKvRkavrui+DteDWHQ57ExMhowPd SrKw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.50.214 with SMTP id y205mr3143635vky.77.1444265167550; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.46.129 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.103.46.129 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:46:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 17:46:07 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143f50e4606bf05218d304e --001a1143f50e4606bf05218d304e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Steve the "reflective" tuning would be fine on a 4 rotor. Its just 2 two rotors and the intakes could use that. The "ram" tuning works just fine with any number of rotors. Bill Jepson On Oct 7, 2015 5:37 PM, "Stephen Izett" wrote= : > Hi Bill and Bill > I though the confusion here (and I could be very wrong) is between two > different concepts. One being the organ (resonant) tuning of the gas flow > in the intake, common to any reciprocating engine or gas flow for that > matter. > The other being the (Two Rotor specific) dynamic Charging concept, whereb= y > the supersonic shockwave of the port closure is directed towards increasi= ng > the charge of the next rotor chamber in a two rotor. > Renesis utilizes a Variable Intake Valve to leverage this effect at highe= r > RPM. > The 26B only relied upon resonant tuning and not the intake charging > effect. > I think the intake charging can only work on a two rotor as other chamber= s > in the case of a 3 or 4 rotor would mess up the opportunity to use the > reflected energy. > Can others comment on my thinking? > > I=E2=80=99ve tried to utilise both =E2=80=9Ctuning=E2=80=9D effects in ou= r 4 port Renesis that > will have its first full power runs hopefully tomorrow. > I have included a Variable Intake Valve that I hope will provide extra > charge at somewhere around 7K. > > Steve Izett > > On 8 Oct 2015, at 8:03 am, William Jepson > wrote: > > 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 acro= ss > the rev range. You just need to alter your thinking a bit. The rotor IS T= HE > 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 mi= ght >> 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 an= d >> has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though compression a= nd >> leak down tests remain to be done. He is now thinking to go turbo inste= ad >> of tearing it down to go P-port. Is it true that there is no intake run= ner >> 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 out= put >> 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 i= s >> 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 >> 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 >> >> >> > > --001a1143f50e4606bf05218d304e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Steve the "reflective" tuning would be fine on a 4= rotor. Its just 2 two rotors and the intakes could use that. The "ram= " tuning works just fine with any number of rotors.

Bill Jepson

On Oct 7, 2015 5:37 PM, "Stephen Izett"= ; <flyrotary@lancaironlin= e.net> wrote:
Hi Bill and Bill
I though the conf= usion here (and I could be very wrong) is between two different concepts. O= ne being the organ (resonant) tuning of the gas flow in the intake, common = to any reciprocating engine or gas flow for that matter.
The othe= r being the (Two Rotor specific) dynamic Charging concept, whereby the supe= rsonic shockwave of the port closure is directed towards increasing the cha= rge of the next rotor chamber in a two rotor.
Renesis utilizes a = Variable Intake Valve to leverage this effect at higher RPM.
The = 26B only relied upon resonant tuning and not the intake charging effect.
I think the intake charging can only work on a two rotor as other c= hambers in the case of a 3 or 4 rotor would mess up the opportunity to use = the reflected energy.
Can others comment on my thinking?

I=E2=80=99ve tried to utilise both =E2=80=9Ctuning=E2=80= =9D effects in our 4 port Renesis that will have its first full power runs = hopefully tomorrow.
I have included a Variable Intake Valve that = I hope will provide extra charge at somewhere around 7K.

Steve Izett

On 8 O= ct 2015, at 8:03 am, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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; <fly= rotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

= If I understa= nd the 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 n= ever 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

Fr= om: 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 friend is b= uilding 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= ?

=C2=A0

James R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Christian,

=C2=A0<= /span>

While you are doing 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<= /u>

Thanks,<= /u>

One of the other Bills<= u>

<= u>=C2=A0

Fr= om: Rotary motors in aircraft<= /u> [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 cust= om built hotdog with inox? baffling.

=C2=A0

Thanks

Bill Schertz

=C2=A0=

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 allot 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 n= ot so good 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 complet= e knowledge before I make my decision,

=C2=A0

The P port as shown for the websi= te is exactly 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 amoun= t of air 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.

<= /u>=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

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

= You should read the description of the effects 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


--001a1143f50e4606bf05218d304e--