X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3460206 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:05:46 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090130130508.DIXU6485.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@computername> for ; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:05:08 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Looking for a rear counterweight Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:05:15 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C982B1.7C05FFC0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 thread-index: AcmCmJOdpgxg4PjKQI+YuWcq0mQ/QAAQiWvQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20090130130508.DIXU6485.cdptpa-omta01.mail.rr.com@computername> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C982B1.7C05FFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Yes, I would no longer consider porting a six port myself, but back in 92 I knew a bit less about the rotary engine. Besides, if the rebuilder had either talked me out of it OR had not charged me for it, the situation would have been a bit different. I personally prefer the turbo block for porting myself. I used the Racing Beat Street port on my turbo block and it really woke it up. By the way, did Jason get his situation sorted out? Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Eslick Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 12:06 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Looking for a rear counterweight Ed, I guess you have seen the Mazdatrix web site where they discourage the whole porting thing with a 6-port. Just the opposite of what Lynn proposes. Bill On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: That's interesting to hear, Bill. My first engine was an 86 N/A that was suppose to have been street ported (I paid to have it done), but when I later tore it down, much to my surprise there had been no porting done. So I ported the next engine myself - at least I got my money's worth {:>). ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C982B1.7C05FFC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes, I would no longer consider = porting a six port myself, but back in 92 I knew a bit less about the rotary engine.  Besides, if the rebuilder had either talked me out of it = OR had not charged me for it, the situation would have been a bit = different. 

 

I personally prefer the turbo block = for porting myself.  I used the Racing Beat Street port on my turbo block and it = really woke it up.

 

By the way, did Jason get his = situation sorted out?

 

 

Ed

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Eslick
Sent: Friday, January 30, = 2009 12:06 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Looking for a rear counterweight

 

Ed,

I guess you have seen the Mazdatrix web site where they discourage the = whole porting thing with a 6-port.  Just the opposite of what Lynn proposes. 

Bill

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:29 PM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t; wrote:

That's interesting to hear, Bill.  My first = engine was an 86 N/A that was suppose to have been street ported (I paid to have it = done), but when I later tore it down, much to my surprise there had been no = porting done.  So I ported the next engine myself – at least I got my money's worth {:>).

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C982B1.7C05FFC0--