Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.196; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <001601c7b2bb$ede19180$824b693a@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2111308@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 07:51:00 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks Bill,
The fact that Larry has his own CNC business suggests to me that he would be 
ideally placed for development. The fact he has the goal to develop specific 
Rotary components( for aviation), is in itself another indicator of  other 
potential ( but yet unknown) benefits. The fact he is close to yourself in 
terms of location, suggests a good opportunity of working closely on 
projects.
The largest problem I have is getting engineering people involved in the 
development stages. It would seem that all they want is a drawings, but more 
importantly the money - the bottom line is that they don't want to have to 
think about anything. It's sad but true.

Now on the other side of the scale we have Larry!
The whole scenario has potential for huge benefits for Rotary Aviation.

I wish I had him locally over here - but I'm working on it.
George (down under)


> Sure George,
> I'd be glad to contribute some drawings to the cause. I have been trying 
> to work with another source to do the same thing. The problem is they all 
> start out talking a mile a minute about how they are going to do something 
> and then the parts just sit there when I try to get them 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 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!
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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 AOL.com.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 AOL.com.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>