X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail32.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.63] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTPS id 2112251 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:30:27 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.63; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d58-105-75-130.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [58.105.75.130]) by mail32.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l5JMTc0I014481 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:29:40 +1000 Message-ID: <005f01c7b2c1$546e1040$824b693a@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: Different Rotary Port configurations Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:29:39 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7B315.247B3D50" 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_005A_01C7B315.247B3D50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jarrett, From my limited knowledge, the side exhausted RX8 would be ideal for PP. = The advantages of the RX8 engine is that the rotor is higher compression = and the inlet manifold is very effective. The disadvantages are that we = can't use the inlet manifold because of it's size and the side exhaust = adds extra heat the oil. Win some lose some. George ( down under) Bob Mears wrote: And let me assure you, a P port will NOT get the same GPH. Theres=20 a lot of fuel wasted with the P Port due to the overlap in timing.=20 I've always wondered about this. Realizing that the P-port exhaust = lets the unburnt fuel into the the exhaust to be burnt there and lost as = a potential for power. What about a Renisis with the side port exhaust? = Wouldn't a P-port Renisis not have this problem, and therefore possibly = produce more power per GPH fuel flow over your typical 13B? Or am I = missing the big picture.. I've always wondered this.. Jarrett Johnson -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7B315.247B3D50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Jarrett,
From my limited knowledge, the side = exhausted RX8=20 would be ideal for PP. The advantages of the RX8 engine is that the = rotor is=20 higher compression and the inlet manifold is very effective. The = disadvantages=20 are that we can't use the inlet manifold because of it's size and the = side=20 exhaust adds extra heat the oil.
Win some lose some.
George ( down under)

Bob Mears wrote:

And let me assure you, a P port will = NOT get=20 the same GPH. Theres
a lot of fuel wasted with the P Port due to = the=20 overlap in timing.

I've always wondered about this. = Realizing=20 that the P-port exhaust lets the unburnt fuel into the the exhaust to = be burnt=20 there and lost as a potential for power. What about a Renisis with the = side=20 port exhaust? Wouldn't a P-port Renisis not have this problem, and = therefore=20 possibly produce more power per GPH fuel flow over your typical 13B? = Or am I=20 missing the big picture..

I've always wondered this..

Jarrett Johnson

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_005A_01C7B315.247B3D50--