Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.9; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com
References: <list-2110673@logan.com>
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 10:16:15 -0400
In-Reply-To: <list-2110673@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: wrjjrs@aol.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Message-Id: <8C980938830AF4C-EE8-D705@webmail-mf18.sysops.aol.com>


Sure George,
I'd be glad to contribute some drawings to the cause. I have been=20
trying to work with another source to do the same thing. The problem is=20
they all start out talking a mile a minute about how they are going to=20
do something and then the parts just sit there when I try to get them=20
started. I'm going to need to get some machinery for myself.
Bill Jepson

-----Original Message-----
From: George Lendich <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:35 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations


Bill,

Your right as usual, the proof is in the pudding. I understand what=20
your saying about tube length and pumping losses. One of the needs of=20
the smaller dia runner is the higher inlet velocity to give best VE. I=20
believe Lynn suggested as much, but what is best for our needs is still=20
guesstimating IMHO, however I take on board your suggestion of 1.75" -=20
yes! wouldn't it be great to make more power than one expected.

=A0

I for one appreciate your efforts to contact Larry!

=A0

If someone was willing to manufacture the suggested PP, would you help=20
with a drawing that shows what we had discussed?

=A0

George ( down under)

=A0

=A0

George and Jerry,


=A0I believe that a properly contoured 1-3/4" port will work fine, but 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=20
is that if your engine makes more power than you expect at a=20
predetermined RPM that is OK too. I completely understand why you want=20
to go with 1-3/4" (44.5 mm George) to keep the gas flow speeds up. The=20
thing to remember is a badly contoured or poorly timed small port will=20
insure nither power or tractability. What really needs to happen is we=20
need to build some of these things and test them.

=A0George,

=A0I have e-mailed Larry through the other list. I can't help him unless=20
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

=A0

Jerry,
I am totally in agreement with your on this subject Jerry and I would=20
dearly
love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an engineer with his own=20
CNC
engineering=A0 business, on this list as well. Now Larry gave a really=20
good
evaluation/assessment on the port sizing which was in line with all=20
that I'd
see before and he concluded a smaller Diameter PP which someone didn't=20
agree
with - Jerry and I have both asked for his e-mail address and it never=20
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=20
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=20
inside)
and my suggestion to Bill J. of an O ring on the outside, would seem to=20
me
to be the ideal PP configuration, now the only other thing to decide is=20
the
Diameter.=A0 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.


=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0


------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.


=A0I believe that a properly contoured 1-3/4" port will work fine, but 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=20
is that if your engine makes more power than you expect at a=20
predetermined RPM that is OK too. I completely understand why you want=20
to go with 1-3/4" (44.5 mm George) to keep the gas flow speeds up. The=20
thing to remember is a badly contoured or poorly timed small port will=20
insure nither power or tractability. What really needs to happen is we=20
need to build some of these things and test them.

=A0George,

=A0I have e-mailed Larry through the other list. I can't help him unless=20
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

=A0

Jerry,
I am totally in agreement with your on this subject Jerry and I would=20
dearly
love to get Larry (on the other list) who is an engineer with his own=20
CNC
engineering=A0 business, on this list as well. Now Larry gave a really=20
good
evaluation/assessment on the port sizing which was in line with all=20
that I'd
see before and he concluded a smaller Diameter PP which someone didn't=20
agree
with - Jerry and I have both asked for his e-mail address and it never=20
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=20
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=20
inside)
and my suggestion to Bill J. of an O ring on the outside, would seem to=20
me
to be the ideal PP configuration, now the only other thing to decide is=20
the
Diameter.=A0 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.


=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0

=A0


------------------------------------------------------------
See what's free at AOL.com.


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free=20
from AOL at AOL.com.
=3D0