X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.101] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2110224 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:30:14 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-103-061.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.103.61]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l5INTZrO009960 for ; Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:29:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001301c7b204$952b88a0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 19:58:34 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Sounds like we have PP nailed down, so now just need to find a source at a reasonable price. On the other hand, I have to keep reminding myself that when I fly, I normally do not come anywhere close to using the power I can produce with my old street ported 13B. I keep the fuel burn down to 7.5-8 GPH. Now, take off is one place where I do use all the old engine can produce even if only for 2-3 minutes. Of course, it always takes fuel to produce power and the thought that crosses my mind is that the for the same power produced the Renesis will undoubtedly get a better specific fuel consumption than a PP. So for those that want the utmost in power, it sounds like the PP is the way to go. For other cheap old chaps the Renesis would appear to offer a cost effective power increase. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 5:34 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Ed, Jerry and others, Sizing of the port and the length of the intake tubes are the details that will control powerband. P-ports have been shown to produce more power at anything above 2000 RPM. We are talking about details here. Jerry you are correct that you can use smaller ports, no problem, but not a LOT smaller. For performance with control I believe I'll chose to run a smaller throttle body. You can limit the system on either end. Bill Jepson -----Original Message----- From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:25 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Hi Jerry, I know you did a lot research on the right sizing of a PP for our application. Any of that material, rationale, etc, you would care to share at this time? The reason I am interested is that with the Mazda folks claiming that the six port Renesis produced 40% more HP than an older 13B. If I assume a modest 160 Hp for the old 13B, 40% more would provide 1.4*160 = 224 HP which I believe is in the ball park of what they are now claiming for HP. Now that sounds goo, however, that is probably at 9000 rpm which is probably a bit high for our needs. So if the PP could produce 224 HP at a lesser rpm say no more than 7500 rpm, then the PP would suit our needs better (just my opinion of course). Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Hey" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations >I usually keep my mouth shut when it comes to P port discussions. I agree >with everything Bill has written with one exception. I doubt the big p >ports are advantageous at our RPM. A 1.5" i.d. port will flow 7500 rpm, >no problem. The smaller ports are easier to time (less overlap) and the >smaller dia. intake tubes are much easier to fit. > jerry > > > > > On Jun 18, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Richard Sohn wrote: >> Bill, AMEN to all. Richard Sohn N2071U ----- Original Message ----- From: >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" >> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 11:12 AM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Guys, >> Lets cut to the chase. The P-port rotary will idle fine. The original >> 12As were p-port. Lots of the NSU wankels were p-port. John Deere and >> MB C111 engines were p-port. There was no comment that these engines >> didn't idle. Perhaps not as smoothly as the side port engines, but idle >> none the less. The P-port makes the most power, period. Mazda wouldn't >> have used the P-port only on their LeMans engine if combination ports >> would have worked better. Don't think for a second they didn't try other >> configurations either. They used the far trailing plug to improve >> efficiency less than 2%. Richard's work showed no improvement to power >> with the side port/p-port combo. Anywhere but idle my guess would be that >> the inrush from the p-port probably causes minimal flow in the side >> ports. The p-port is open much sooner and flow is underway by the >> time the side port opens. If we had a source for finished p-port housings >> that cost the same as the standard housings we would all be using them >> and the discussion would cease and we would move on to other >> subjects. For aircraft use the big p-port is for most cases the best >> possible solution. We can improve on minor details, but not much. The >> simpler manifolding and more compact package when using fewer tubes for >> the intake are all pluses for the p-port. We don't have car low RPM >> issues to worry about. If a good source of the Mazda racing p-port >> housings was available for the same price as standard housings I'd have >> 3 on order right now. (20B remember) Bill Jepson Well, Mark - perhaps in >> the future Only so much time and so many things that would be fun to try. >> IF I interpret the charts correctly the P + S type intake configuration >> appears to provide much more intake port area than either the P or S type >> along. Makes sense - if you have twice as many intakes it has more area. >> Supposedly the P+S overcomes the low rpm idle problem of the PP alone. >> But, for aircraft usage, I think Richard is on the money, you don't >> really spend much time at idle in aircraft usage and I idle above 1600 >> rpm in any case, so who cares {:>) - just go with the P port. However, I >> am intrigued by the large intake area that the P + S configuration has >> over even the PP alone and what that might potent for POWER! More Power, >> Scotty!!!!! Saw some information on the Renesis in an SAE paper that >> indicates the >> six port (They call it the HIGH POWER Renesis) produces 40% more power >> than the standard 13B. They did not make a comparison to the 4 port >> Renesis but presumably it produces less than the six port Renesis but >> more than the older 13B. They also didn't specify the rpm point that >> occurred, but I assume it must be near its maximum. Also, its not clear >> if this figure was based on the earlier 250 HP claim for the Renesis by >> Mazda or the later adjusted 237 HP claim (actually I'd take >> either one) . The intake configuration and operation on the six port is >> quite involved, but they do make use of the Dynamic Effect. They call it the >> Sequential Dynamic Air Intake System (S-DAIS). Since there is no >> intake/exhaust port overlap in the Renesis, they appear to make use of >> the "A" pulse which is the pressure wave created when the high velocity >> air in the intake slams into the closing port and bounced back down the >> manifold. They then have several valves that activate at different >> rpm/air flow situations that control the sequential activation of >> elements of the S-DAIS. As well as the "A" pulse, the older NA 13B DEI >> also used the stronger >> "B" pulse created when the intake opened releasing a burst of the trapped >> exhaust gas residue to create a power shock wave which raised >> the manifold pressure at the second rotor's intake. But, since there is >> no intake/exhaust overlap with the Renesis side ports, it would appear >> that only the "A" pulse is used to enhance power. Ed ----- Original >> Message ----- >> >> From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Monday, June 18, >> 2007 9:12 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port >> configurations Thanks Richard for the clarification. Mark S. (Looks like >> I should have typed a little faster.) On 6/18/07, Mark Steitle >> 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. On 6/17/07, Ed Anderson >> wrote: Ok, here's the answer to my question. >> The second image shows a three barrel carb with the primary going to two >> side intake ports and the secondary going to the Peripheral ports. >> Interesting concept. Ed ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sunday, June 17, >> 2007 10:15 PM Subject: Different Rotary Port configurations Ok, getting a >> bit quite again. Here is something that some of you may >> find interesting. Its a graph comparing the possible different port >> configurations for the Rotary engine. The top graph shows the intake and >> exhaust port opening for a engine with a peripheral intake and peripheral >> exhaust - such as a 13B which >> has been converted to a PP intake. The trapezoidal shapes show the port >> area. For example on the first graph the first rectangular area entitled >> PORT shows the Peripheral exhaust port open at 63Deg ATDC. There are two >> trapezoid areas shown for the Peripheral intake. A "P" which I presume >> stands for Primary and a much larger P+S which I presumes stands for a >> combined primary and Secondary port. Although, I do not ever recall a PP >> with two tubes >> one for primary and one for secondary. So there may be another >> explanation. The second graph is our traditional 13B with sideport intake >> and peripheral port exhaust. Here the intake timing for the intake is that >> of the NA 13B although it shows the intake opening a bit later than the >> stock 13B but closing at the stock 40 deg ABDC. If you look at the area >> under the first graphs "P" trapezoid it appears >> to be open much longer than the P for the side port intake (2nd graph), >> but the trapezoid is not as high. Wonder what that signifies? Open longer >> but not as large a port area? Anyhow, thought some of you might find it >> interesting. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC >> eanderson@carolina.rr.com >> http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW >> http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ______________________________________________________________________ __ >> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free >> from AOL at AOL.com. =0 -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/ List.html -- >> No >> virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 >> 8:23 AM >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. =0 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html