|
|
That's certainly interesting, Randy, in that the 6 port and 4 port Rx-8 engine both use identical internal parts. True the induction system and port openings on the castings is different due to the number of ports - similar to the difference between the older 13B six port and 4 port turbo engines.
While the 6 port will reportedly produce higher HP, its only when you get up into the 8500+ rpm range that is true. Then the better high rpm breathing of the 6 port induction system gives it an edge in producing power. However, I know of no one who has exceeded 7500 rpm in aircraft application at this point. Tracy Crook as probably a couple hundred hours on a 4 port . I believe his conclusion was that the complexity of the six port intake Vs its potential adaptation for aircraft use made the 4 port preferable.
In any case, hard to understand why one engine would be junk when it shares the same design and parts as the other engine - sure would like to know some particulars about it.
Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: "randy echtinaw" <rjechtinaw@ia4u.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:17 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] RX-8
Gentlemen,
I have the opportunity to purchase a 4 port or a 6 port RX-8 engine. I thought I wanted a 4 port because I thought it would be easier to muffel. I just heard a "rumor" that the 4 port is junk and go with the 6 port. I need 220-230 hp using the 2.85 PSRU, no turbo. I would consider P-porting if absolutely necessary to get the HP. Obviously, I know very little about engines and want to start with the best I can get so, considering my needs which one do I want?
Thank you,
Randy
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|
|