X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-05.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.104] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2111158 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:26:50 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.104; 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-05.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l5JCQ4As008857 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:26:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001e01c7b26d$02320380$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: BSFC was [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 08:26:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C7B24B.7AD1A740" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C7B24B.7AD1A740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ok, Bill, I think we agreed that a stock Renesis could be cheaper than a = PP (all depending on price paid for either, of course).=20 However, I'm not certain I fully understood whether my comment about = the Renesis betting a better specific Fuel consumption than a PP was an = area of disagreement. It appears it was. I must admit some degree of ignorance in this area , however, I always = thought that getting better SFC was due (at least in part) better use of = each unit of fuel to produce useful mechanical work. So, if I = understood you correctly, you are saying that the PP which has all this = overlap gets a better SFC than the Renesis which can better contain the = combustion process (no overlap). I must admit that surprises me. But, = always willing to learn. ED ----- Original Message -----=20 From: WRJJRS@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 1:19 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations In a message dated 6/18/2007 4:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, = eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: 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=20 way to go. For other cheap old chaps the Renesis would appear to = offer a=20 cost effective power increase. Ed Here Ed I have to totally DISagree. The side ported engine is used to = provide more power, and has bigger side ports only workable with the = Renesis, but must also pass smog regulations and provide low-end torque = for car use. The need for the higher redline is the total giveaway. For = ANY i.c.e. the key to higher bmep is higher RPM. Spin your 13B to 9k and = provide it with an adaquate intake and exhaust I would bet money you = will be within a few HP. While I don't want to sound like a broken = record, and certainly not trying to be contentious, Mazda built the 26B = for use in a race using an economy formula. If side ports were more = efficient they would have used them! P-ports make more power, but in = the low to midrange so critical in a car they are much dirtier on HC. I = really believe that the Renesis came from Mazda's hydrogen experiments. = The ability to produce large ports WITH NO OVERLAP was critical to the = success of that project. Much talk has been made of the fact that p-port = rotaries have considerable overlap in the exhaust to intake phase. So = does every high performance piston engine ever built. Tuners have even = found the overlap phase to be beneficial to performance when the engine = is properly tuned. The reason for the renesis is IMHO the need to pass = smog and provide competitive power, Not that the Renesis is the "best" = configuration. I'm glad they're building it since it is the key to = Rotary survival. I simply harbor no delusions that Mazda wouldn't run a = p-port with variable length intake tract if smog and noise would allow = it. The advent of truly functional Direct injection may make the return = of p-ports possible, but there is now a lot of inertia against them.=20 As for cheaper I agree. Anything over-the-counter is a less expensive = solution!=20 Bill Jepson -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- See what's free at AOL.com. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C7B24B.7AD1A740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ok, Bill, I think we agreed that a stock Renesis = could be=20 cheaper than a PP (all depending on price paid for either, of=20 course). 
 
 However, I'm not certain I fully understood = whether my=20 comment about the Renesis betting a better specific Fuel consumption = than a PP=20 was an  area of disagreement.  It appears it = was.
 
  I must admit some degree of ignorance in this = area ,=20 however, I always thought that getting better SFC was due (at least in = part)=20 better use of each unit of fuel to produce useful mechanical work.  = So, if=20 I understood you correctly, you are saying that the PP which has all = this=20 overlap gets a better SFC than the Renesis which can better contain the=20 combustion process (no overlap).  I must admit that surprises = me. =20 But, always willing to learn.
 
ED
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 WRJJRS@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2007 = 1:19=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: = Different=20 Rotary Port configurations

In a message dated 6/18/2007 4:30:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com=20 writes:
Renesis will undoubtedly get a better specific fuel = consumption than=20 a PP.

  So for those that want the utmost in power, it = sounds=20 like the PP is the
way to go.  For other cheap old chaps = the=20 Renesis would appear to offer a
cost effective power=20 increase.

Ed
Here Ed I have to totally DISagree. The side ported engine = is used=20 to provide more power, and has bigger side ports only workable with = the=20 Renesis, but must also pass smog regulations and provide = low-end=20 torque for car use. The need for the higher redline is the total = giveaway. For=20 ANY i.c.e. the key to higher bmep is higher RPM. Spin your 13B to 9k = and=20 provide it with an adaquate intake and exhaust I would bet money you = will be=20 within a few HP. While I don't want to sound like a broken record, and = certainly not trying to be contentious, Mazda built the 26B for use in = a race=20 using an economy formula. If side ports were more efficient they would = have=20 used them!  P-ports make more power, but in the low to midrange = so=20 critical in a car they are much dirtier on HC. I really believe that = the=20 Renesis came from Mazda's hydrogen experiments. The ability to produce = large=20 ports WITH NO OVERLAP was critical to the success of that project. = Much talk=20 has been made of the fact that p-port rotaries have considerable = overlap in=20 the exhaust to intake phase. So does every high performance piston = engine ever=20 built. Tuners have even found the overlap phase to be beneficial to=20 performance when the engine is properly tuned. The reason for the = renesis is=20 IMHO the need to pass smog and provide competitive power, Not that the = Renesis=20 is the "best" configuration. I'm glad they're building it since it is = the key=20 to Rotary survival. I simply harbor no delusions that Mazda wouldn't = run a=20 p-port with variable length intake tract if smog and noise would allow = it. The=20 advent of truly functional Direct injection may make the return of = p-ports=20 possible, but there is now a lot of inertia against them.
 As for cheaper I agree. Anything over-the-counter is a = less=20 expensive solution! 
Bill Jepson



See what's free at AOL.com.=20
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C7B24B.7AD1A740--