X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail24.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTPS id 2110686 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:36:27 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.133.165; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d58-105-75-130.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [58.105.75.130]) by mail24.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l5J6ZeEB000987 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:35:42 +1000 Message-ID: <000c01c7b23c$0fcfb180$824b693a@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:35:36 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7B28F.DD297E60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0657-0, 12/12/2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7B28F.DD297E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, Your right as usual, the proof is in the pudding. I understand what your = saying about tube length and pumping losses. One of the needs of the = smaller dia runner is the higher inlet velocity to give best VE. I = believe Lynn suggested as much, but what is best for our needs is still = guesstimating IMHO, however I take on board your suggestion of 1.75" - = yes! wouldn't it be great to make more power than one expected. I for one appreciate your efforts to contact Larry!=20 If someone was willing to manufacture the suggested PP, would you help = with a drawing that shows what we had discussed? George ( down under) 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.=20 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=20 love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an engineer with his own = CNC=20 engineering business, on this list as well. Now Larry gave a really = good=20 evaluation/assessment on the port sizing which was in line with all = that I'd=20 see before and he concluded a smaller Diameter PP which someone didn't = agree=20 with - Jerry and I have both asked for his e-mail address and it never = found=20 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=20 he's about in relation to the rotary and is in a position to be a = great=20 contributor. However I did suggest he make single cranks but I got no=20 response from that one. Now the suggestion of welding a SS tube to the steel liner ( on the = inside)=20 and my suggestion to Bill J. of an O ring on the outside, would seem = to me=20 to be 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 = restriction=20 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=20 splitting hairs at this stage. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- See what's free at AOL.com. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7B28F.DD297E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill,
Your right as usual, the proof is in the pudding. I understand what = your=20 saying about tube length and pumping losses. One of the needs of the = smaller dia=20 runner is the higher inlet velocity to give best VE. I believe Lynn = suggested as=20 much, but what is best for our needs is still guesstimating IMHO, = however I take=20 on board your suggestion of 1.75" - yes! wouldn't it be great to make = more power=20 than one expected.
 
I for one appreciate your efforts to contact Larry!
 
If someone was willing to manufacture the suggested PP, would you = help with=20 a drawing that shows what we had discussed?
 
George ( down under)
 
 
George and=20 Jerry,
 I believe that a properly contoured 1-3/4" port will work = fine, but=20 I 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 that=20 if your engine makes more power than you expect at a predetermined RPM = that is=20 OK too. I completely understand why you want to go with 1-3/4" (44.5 = mm=20 George) to keep the gas flow speeds up. The thing to remember is a = badly=20 contoured or poorly timed small port will insure nither power or = tractability.=20 What really needs to happen is we need to build some of these things = and test=20 them.
 George,
 I have e-mailed Larry through the other list. I can't help = him=20 unless he contacts me. So far no joy. I have some ideas for products = which I=20 would contribute just for the parts if he is willing to cooperate I'm=20 in.
Bill Jepson
 
Jerry,
I am totally in agreement with your on this subject = Jerry and=20 I would dearly
love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an = engineer=20 with his own CNC
engineering  business, on this list as well. = Now=20 Larry gave a really good
evaluation/assessment on the port sizing = which=20 was in line with all that I'd
see before and he concluded a = smaller=20 Diameter PP which someone didn't agree
with - Jerry and I have = both asked=20 for his e-mail address and it never found
the group ( funny=20 that).

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

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

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



See what's free at AOL.com.=20
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7B28F.DD297E60--