X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from tomcat.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.3) with ESMTP id 971048 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2005 19:26:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov Received: from mungo.al.noaa.gov (mungo.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.126]) by tomcat.al.noaa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.0) with ESMTP id j4VNPKKG001763 for ; Tue, 31 May 2005 17:25:20 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050531165437.03bcb9f8@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 17:24:29 -0600 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Bill Dube Subject: 213 mph 75% cruise (was: RX-8 6 port Intake - Like, complicated....) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 03:56 PM 5/31/2005, you wrote: > >I must say I agree with Tracy on this, after looking at both, the only >difference been power seems ( to me) to be as a result of the complex >porting. As this will be scrapped for a 'home-brew' port arrangement, I >believe the 4 port will be a lot easier to work on - for the average builder! The two extra ports get you 40 extra HP with no additional weight. This is a 20% increase in HP for the trouble of building two more runners on the intake. The top speed for an RV-7 with 247 HP could be 240 MPH, perhaps even more with a skinny cowling. (I realize this is beyond the 230 mph Vne, but I was just making a point.....) Regardless, it's fun just to think about a 75% cruise speed of 213 mph. Bill Dube'