X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2109219 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:41:31 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.37; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.c46.167b2b7c (14457) for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:40:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:40:44 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1182177644" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5366 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1182177644 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/18/2007 9:42:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: On 6/18/07, Mark Steitle <_msteitle@gmail.com_ (mailto:msteitle@gmail.com) > wrote: Well Ed, It looks like you've got yourself a new intake project. Didn't Richard Sohn try running side and peripheral intake porting on his one rotor? I vaguely remember him mentioning it and that he abandoned the idea. I think it had something to do with the complexity of the dual runners and that he was satisfied with the idle characteristics of the p-port? Maybe Richard can comment? Mark S. I have never seen a 6 port in road racing. Only 4 ports with bridge ports or periphery ports. Too much port and runner cross section reduces velocity and moves peak power way up the RPM band. Porting is used to change timing, like changing cams. The smallest runners and port faces have the highest velocity. Better idle great mid range and good peak HP at a lower RPM. For any fixed RPM, the higher velocity gets in more mixture than a lower velocity. Every day some kid grinds up some huge ports for his rotary and ends up with a dog of a street engine. Less HP than the stock engine. You cannot fool mother nature, or Bernoulli. Lynn E. Hanover ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1182177644 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 6/18/2007 9:42:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>On 6/18/07, Mark Steitle=20 <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:=20

Well Ed,

It looks like you've got yourself a new intake project. Didn'= t=20 Richard Sohn try running side and peripheral intake porting on his one=20 rotor? I vaguely remember him mentioning it and that he aband= oned=20 the idea. I think it had something to do with the complexity=20= of=20 the dual runners and that he was satisfied with the idle characteristics= of=20 the p-port? Maybe Richard can comment?

Mark S.

I have never seen a 6 port in road racing. Only 4 ports with bridge por= ts=20 or periphery ports.

Too much port and runner cross section reduces velocity and moves = peak=20 power way up the RPM band.

Porting is used to change timing, like changing cams. The=20 smallest runners and port faces have the highest velocity.=20 Better idle great mid range and good peak HP at a lower RPM.

For any fixed RPM, the higher velocity gets in more mixture than a lowe= r=20 velocity.

Every day some kid grinds up some huge ports for his rotary and ends up= =20 with a dog of a street engine. Less HP than the stock engine.

You cannot fool mother nature, or Bernoulli.

Lynn E. Hanover

See w= hat's free at AOL.= com.
-------------------------------1182177644--