Lehanover@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 6/22/2005 7:23:37 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> 13brv3@bellsouth.net writes:
>
>     While Lynn seems to love PP for racing, I'm not sure I've seen him
>     state that he thinks it's the best way to go for aircraft.  How
>     about it Lynn, for, or against PP for aircraft use?
>
>
> Either side port (Bridgeport) or Pport will work just fine for
> aircraft use.
>
>  This is your lucky day. I have a tube frame with a first Gen body and
> a factory Pport engine. It has a Weaver Brothers external pressure
> pump, but the front iron is intact, so you could go back to the stock
> pump if you like. It has a trans but no rear end. Needs a Speedway or
> similar quickchange. A nice trailer is included.
>
> The Pport has shorter intake timing than the "J" Bridgeport engine. It
> idles much slower than the Bridgeport engine and has power a bit lower
> in the RPM range than the Bridgeport.
> It is not difficult to drive around the paddock with a tall first
> gear. The Bridgeport is a nasty mess to drive around, and has around 3
> HP until it get wound up a bit.The Pport is also still making power
> right through 10,000 RPM if that ever comes up. This is a 12-A Pport
> with about 300 HP at 10,000.
>
> The home built 13B Pport could be much better. It is just too easy to
> build. As I pointed out with the 12A data at 7,500 212 HP and that
> engine has the intake tuned to give best power at 9,400 RPM. Those are
> real Ohio HP. Not those little California HP used to sell race engines.
>
> A well done 13B Pport with very mild exhaust work should have 230 to
> 250 continuous at 7,500 RPM. Plan fuel pickups for a 45 degree climb
> angle.
>
> If you only need 220 HP then the side port is quick and easy also.
>
> Lynn E. Hanover

It's fun to bat around the incredible numbers a rotary is capable of,
but for most of us 160-200 hp at cruise is about the most our airframes
are designed for & can haul fuel for. Even big 4 seaters or very fast
glass can't use more than around 225 continuous hp efficiently (75% of
300 hp). The airframe drag going up means you just waste gas making more
hp than the airframe design speed calls for.

The question I'd like answered is this: What configuration can be made
the most fuel efficient while making hp in this range?

Should it be p-port & 2.1 redrive, p-port & 2.85, side-port & 2.85, etc
etc?

My gut is betting on a small-diameter p-port & 2.85 drive, hoping for
good takeoff performance with a big, fixed pitch prop & keeping fuel
efficiency up turning whatever it takes to cruise at the above power
range. My needs in an RV-7 would be in the 160-180hp (actual cruise
power setting) & someone in an RV-10 would need 190-210 actual cruise hp.

Charlie


>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html