Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 792371 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:08:05 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050314140721.SDMB20331.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2005 09:07:21 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: peripheral ports Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 08:05:23 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c5289e$dd8f3160$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5286C.92F4C160" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5286C.92F4C160 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable P.S to Rusty. You said a good street port would develop about the same = power as a good p port at our rpms. Sorry but this is simply not true.=20 =20 Hi Jerry, =20 What I actually said was (pasted directly from my previous message): =20 "There's also considerable doubt whether a good PP engine can actually = out produce a good side port (ported REW housings) engine in the rpm's we're running. I'd be willing to bet that the side port will be more = civilized across the rpm range too." =20 As you may recall, I was all fired up to do a PP for the single rotor project, mostly because the intake would be a single tube, and simple to make. The more I looked into it, the more I came to believe that there = was no real advantage to PP at the RPM's we're running. I now have new REW housings in the garage, which will become the single rotor engine. =20 =20 I'll be happy to see you prove me wrong, and I REALLY DO mean that! Now that I have the Sonerai, I'll be needing another single rotor at some = point, and I'm still interested in PP. How long do you figure it will be = before you get your current engine running? =20 Cheers, Rusty (just keeping the conversation lively) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5286C.92F4C160 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message P.S to Rusty. You said a good street port would develop about the = same=20 power as a good p port at our rpms. Sorry but this is simply not true. =
 
Hi=20 Jerry,
 
What I=20 actually said was (pasted directly from my previous=20 message):
 
"There's also considerable doubt whether a good PP engine = can=20 actually out produce a good side port (ported REW housings) engine in = the rpm's=20 we're running.  I'd be willing to bet that the side port will be=20 more civilized across the rpm range=20 too."
 
As = you may recall,=20 I was all fired up to do a PP for the single rotor project, mostly = because the=20 intake would be a single tube, and simple to make.  The more I = looked into=20 it, the more I came to believe that there was no real advantage to PP at = the=20 RPM's we're running.  I now have new REW housings in the garage, = which will=20 become the single rotor engine.  =
 
I'll be happy to=20 see you prove me wrong, and I REALLY DO mean that!  Now that I = have=20 the Sonerai, I'll be needing another single rotor at some point, and I'm = still=20 interested in PP.  How long do you figure it will be = before you=20 get your current engine=20 running?
 
Cheers,
Rusty (just=20 keeping the conversation lively)=20   
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5286C.92F4C160--