X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Neil Unger" Received: from nschwmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com ([61.9.189.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8057478 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 16:10:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.9.189.143; envelope-from=neil.unger@bigpond.com Received: from nschwcmgw08p ([61.9.190.168]) by nschwmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com with ESMTP id <20151008200955.QTVE1304.nschwmtas03p.mx.bigpond.com@nschwcmgw08p> for ; Thu, 8 Oct 2015 20:09:55 +0000 Received: from UserPC ([121.218.71.176]) by nschwcmgw08p with BigPond Outbound id Sk9p1r00J3oC7W101k9qzd; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 20:09:55 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=F6HVh9dN c=1 sm=1 a=qBGjSy+guQ/Y7/DwLp6+hw==:17 a=1IlZJK9HAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=teqftKdIAAAA:8 a=5I7ZRDgBAAAA:20 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=SgqQbmuyTp_TVe3Z77UA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=dmpOll9eaLMA:10 a=Q5B01qBbRTMb068-:21 a=S9rFtcZKTL8XOded:21 a=_16Vk-1QKj-gCWF4PVMA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=qBGjSy+guQ/Y7/DwLp6+hw==:117 Message-ID: <580CC0F63F3C4CC69D7A7AD0BB346436@UserPC> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 07:09:38 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01D10261.75DF3260" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01D10261.75DF3260 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable James, you seem to have summed it up very well. At the end of the day = it is what suits you and how much time you have to manufacture. = Starting from scratch and with the motor disassembled the P port is by = far the simplest and best but more costly to get the porting done say = $800, but you then save with time after that. As usual nothing is = simple. Neil. From: James R. Osborn=20 Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:00 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Back to my question:=20 P-Port pros: power, simple, reliable, NA cons: tuning, long intakes, rebuild (assuming you have a side port built = already) Turbo pros: power, tuning less of a factor, short intakes, use side port short = block, altitude compensation cons: more complicated, less reliable, more heat? We haven=E2=80=99t really discussed different compression rotors. But = the Renesis has high compression rotors and is less suitable to turbo = charging without altering the rotors, right? If you already have a = motor built with side ports and low compression rotors (13B REW, 20B), = it is ready for a turbo, but P-Port would entail a significant rebuild, = right? On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Lehanover = wrote: Not the case for a turbo installation. Both the exhaust and intake of = turbo systems are just long enough to mount the turbo. Once you have the = intake charge well above ambient pressure, not much length tuning is = needed. The ports and runner sizes in the turbo irons are enormous.=20 In the normally aspirated Pport both intake and exhaust lengths and = diameters make a big difference. Note the Mistral runner lengths. ( a = side port engine). Similar lengths would put best power in a Pport at a = similar RPM. The biggest effect will be muffler design. NA rotaries tune = like dirt bikes. Very sensitive to exhaust length, diameter and back = pressure. The Le mans engine had adjustable inlet lengths because it was = an NA engine.=20 Lynn E. Hanover In a message dated 10/7/2015 8:04:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, = flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes: 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 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=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 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=20 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]=20 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=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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. =20 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=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 ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01D10261.75DF3260 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
James,  you seem to have summed it up very well.  At the = end of=20 the day it is what suits you and how much time you have to = manufacture. =20 Starting from scratch and with the motor disassembled the P port is by = far the=20 simplest and best but more costly to get the porting done say $800, but = you then=20 save with time after that.  As usual nothing is simple.  = Neil.
 
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 1:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...
 
Back=20 to my question:=20
 
P-Port
pros: power, simple, reliable, NA
cons: tuning, long intakes, rebuild (assuming you have a side port = built=20 already)
 
Turbo
pros: power, tuning less of a factor, short intakes, use side port = short=20 block, altitude compensation
cons: more complicated, less reliable, more heat?
 
We haven=E2=80=99t really discussed different compression = rotors.  But the=20 Renesis has high compression rotors and is less suitable to turbo = charging=20 without altering the rotors, right?  If you already have a motor = built with=20 side ports and low compression rotors (13B REW, 20B), it is ready for a = turbo,=20 but P-Port would entail a significant rebuild, right?
 
On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Lehanover <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:
 
Not the case for a turbo installation. Both the exhaust and = intake of=20 turbo systems are just long enough to mount the turbo. Once you have = the=20 intake charge well above ambient pressure, not much length tuning is=20 needed.
 
The ports and runner sizes in the turbo irons are enormous. =
 
In the normally aspirated Pport both intake and exhaust lengths = and=20 diameters make a big difference. Note the Mistral runner lengths. ( a = side=20 port engine). Similar lengths would put best power in a Pport at a = similar=20 RPM. The biggest effect will be muffler design. NA rotaries tune like = dirt=20 bikes. Very sensitive to exhaust length, diameter and back pressure. = The Le=20 mans engine had adjustable inlet lengths because it was an NA engine. =
 
Lynn E. Hanover
 
In a message dated 10/7/2015 8:04:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, = flyrotary@lancaironline.net=20 writes:

Bill,
You couldn't be more incorrect. The P port is = VERY=20 tuneable. Witness the LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes = to=20 improve driveability across the rev range. You just need to alter = your=20 thinking a bit. The rotor IS THE VALVE. When in the intake phase = tuning=20 length is very effective. A turbo works similarly, but length isn't = as=20 critical. Obstruction is more important in the turbo version. If the = path is=20 clean and free of sharp corners the turbo doesn't work as hard and = doesn't=20 heat the intake charge as much. Less need for an intercooler.

Bill Jepson

On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

If I = understand=20 the situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=A6.a = tuned intake would give=20 a turbo more power at a given boost pressure than it would have = untuned at=20 that same boost pressure.  However, the benefit might not be = worth=20 the effort due to the small incremental=20 difference.

On the = other=20 hand, a P-port is never closed so there would be negligible = reflected=20 waves to use for tuning.  The rotor apex seal slides by the = opening=20 of the port and slices off the fuel/air charge that is going to = one rotor=20 face and it starts to be directed to the other face.  Think = of the=20 intake air column as a sausage that is being sliced off as the = apex goes=20 by the open port.  Very little reflectivity to use for=20 tuning.

 

Or more = likely, I=20 could be wrong.

 

Bill=20

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October = 07, 2015=20 11:39 AM
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To = P or=20 not...

 

One more question to throw into the = mix.  A=20 friend is building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently = believed to=20 be fresh though compression and leak down tests remain to be = done. =20 He is now thinking to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go=20 P-port.  Is it true that there is no intake runner tuning for = a turbo=20 setup?  Yes it is more complicated to go turbo (than = peripheral), but=20 there is also the advantages at = altitude.

 

So the extra question is:  P-port = or=20 turbo?

 

James R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com =

 

On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill = Bradburry=20 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

 

Christian,

 

While = you are=20 doing that, you could also include some info on your pporting of = the=20 Renesis.  How did you know where to bore the holes for = proper=20 timing and how did you seal the water jacket?  I assume = that you=20 just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or=20 something?

 

Thanks,

One = of the=20 other Bills

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] =
Sent: Wednesday, October = 07, 2015=20 9:04 AM
To:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = To P or=20 not...

 

can you give = details on=20 your custom built hotdog with inox?=20 baffling.

 

Thanks

Bill=20 = Schertz

=

 

Sent:=20 Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08=20 PM

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: To P or=20 = not...

 

=

I would agree, = yes it=20 worked out to be allot more simpler running 2 x 2" runners than = playing=20 with 4 in my opinion and  easier to manufactur=20 etc

From modifying = my engine=20 from a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 port intake I = gained a=20 good 30-40 hp and 15 k top=20 end

The noise also = isn't that=20 bad on my renises as I've attached a custom built hotdog = underneath with=20 inox baffling which works=20 well



Sent = from my=20 iPhone


On=20 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

Trying to = ensure I have=20 a complete knowledge before I make my=20 decision,

 

The P port as = shown for=20 the website is exactly what we are looking for. Straight = forward power=20 at high rpm.  The noise is a factor of energy output = which is the=20 same.  =

 

If I tune a 4 = port=20 runner system and get x amount of air into the engine I give y = amount=20 of fuel and I have z amount of power and engine exhaust/noise = to=20 handle.

 

If I use a P = port and=20 get x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is the exact = same z=20 output.  It was just easier to get x amount of air into = the=20 system.

 

Or am I = completely off=20 base.

 


On Oct 6, = 2015, at=20 2:17 PM, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

Bob,
One = thing that=20 everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are = almost=20 always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just = fine.=20 Good balance and vibration control are the key to good idle. = The=20 engine won't make a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a = problem=20 for an aircraft. The rotary makes a better aircraft engine = than a=20 car engine!

Bill=20 Jepson

On Oct 6, = 2015 9:14=20 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

You should = read the=20 description of the effects of P-porting at this = website.  See=20 bottom entry.   http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm  And=20 it is loud!!!  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI

= Bob=20 J. Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: = Tuesday,=20 October 06, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or=20 not...

I understand the benefits of P porting the=20 engine.  And I think I know the answer to my question = but=20 thought I'd verify.

Looking for 180-200 hp.  I = have a=20 freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b.
If the intake and = exhaust are=20 built right I should have no problem getting that power=20 NA.

If I P port the intake it will be easier to make = 200 or=20 more. however it is just easier to get air into the engine, = and=20 therefore more fuel. But it is not by any means more fuel=20 efficient?

So therefore if I don't need the power I = don't=20 need to P port.

Mark


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



--
Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l

 

 
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01D10261.75DF3260--