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 2110609 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:54:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.157.37; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.c19.18080501 (40522) for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 00:53:26 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1182228806" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5042 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1182228806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit George and Jerry, I believe that a properly contoured 1-3/4" port will work fine, but I believe that the tube length is far more important. My logic is that smaller ports do incur more pumping losses. Another thing to remember is that if your engine makes more power than you expect at a predetermined RPM that is OK too. I completely understand why you want to go with 1-3/4" (44.5 mm George) to keep the gas flow speeds up. The thing to remember is a badly contoured or poorly timed small port will insure nither power or tractability. What really needs to happen is we need to build some of these things and test them. George, I have e-mailed Larry through the other list. I can't help him unless he contacts me. So far no joy. I have some ideas for products which I would contribute just for the parts if he is willing to cooperate I'm in. Bill Jepson Jerry, I am totally in agreement with your on this subject Jerry and I would dearly love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an engineer with his own CNC engineering business, on this list as well. Now Larry gave a really good evaluation/assessment on the port sizing which was in line with all that I'd see before and he concluded a smaller Diameter PP which someone didn't agree with - Jerry and I have both asked for his e-mail address and it never found the group ( funny that). I was hoping Bill J. would be able to arrange this ( hint, hint). BTW Larry is intending to manufacture Mazda components, to service the Aviation Industry. Just reading his suggestions, convinces me he knows what he's about in relation to the rotary and is in a position to be a great contributor. However I did suggest he make single cranks but I got no response from that one. Now the suggestion of welding a SS tube to the steel liner ( on the inside) and my suggestion to Bill J. of an O ring on the outside, would seem to me to be the ideal PP configuration, now the only other thing to decide is the Diameter. I believe 1.5" ( 38mm) is adequate, but with any restriction maybe 1.6 ( 40 to 41mm) to 1.7 ( 43mm) would be necessary. I think the suggested Al 2" ( 51mm) has an ID of 1.8 ( 45-46mm) - we really are splitting hairs at this stage. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------------------------1182228806 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

George and Jerry,

I believe that a properly contoured 1-3/4" port will work fine, b= ut I=20 believe that the tube length is far more important. My logic is that=20 smaller ports do incur more pumping losses. Another thing to remember is tha= t if=20 your engine makes more power than you expect at a predetermined RPM that is=20= OK=20 too. I completely understand why you want to go with 1-3/4" (44.5 mm George)= to=20 keep the gas flow speeds up. The thing to remember is a badly contoured or=20 poorly timed small port will insure nither power or tractability. What reall= y=20 needs to happen is we need to build some of these things and test them.

George,

I have e-mailed Larry through the other list. I can't help him un= less=20 he contacts me. So far no joy. I have some ideas for products which I would=20 contribute just for the parts if he is willing to cooperate I'm in.

Bill Jepson

Jerry,
I am totally in agreement with your on this subject Jerry= and I=20 would dearly
love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an engineer wi= th=20 his own CNC
engineering business, on this list as well. Now Larry=20= gave=20 a really good
evaluation/assessment on the port sizing which was in line= =20 with all that I'd
see before and he concluded a smaller Diameter PP whic= h=20 someone didn't agree
with - Jerry and I have both asked for his e-mail=20 address and it never found
the group ( funny that).

I was hoping=20= Bill=20 J. would be able to arrange this ( hint, hint).

BTW Larry is intendin= g to=20 manufacture Mazda components, to service the
Aviation Industry. Just rea= ding=20 his suggestions, convinces me he knows what
he's about in relation to th= e=20 rotary and is in a position to be a great
contributor. However I did sug= gest=20 he make single cranks but I got no
response from that one.

Now th= e=20 suggestion of welding a SS tube to the steel liner ( on the inside)
and=20= my=20 suggestion to Bill J. of an O ring on the outside, would seem to me
to b= e=20 the ideal PP configuration, now the only other thing to decide is the=20
Diameter. I believe 1.5" ( 38mm) is adequate, but with any restric= tion=20
maybe 1.6 ( 40 to 41mm) to 1.7 ( 43mm) would be necessary. I think the=20
suggested Al 2" ( 51mm) has an ID of 1.8 ( 45-46mm) - we really are=20
splitting hairs at this stage.

See what's fre= e at AOL.com.=20=

-------------------------------1182228806--