X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2042378 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 May 2007 15:54:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net; b=d5zru5CophKZ0cQWTcEfM7dgBFavluCVjV9lncAObej9d4bLamWJKTu6KxN/0T1r; h=Received:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Message-Id:From:Subject:Date:To:X-Mailer:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [71.49.146.183] (helo=[192.168.0.101]) by elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HnK8f-0000eD-PZ for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 13 May 2007 15:53:54 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-1062858263 Message-Id: From: Jerry Hey Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 240Hp? Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 15:53:57 -0400 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-ELNK-Trace: 8104856d7830ec6b1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec79e436ae5a666255d796b553590a422922350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 71.49.146.183 --Apple-Mail-4-1062858263 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; delsp=yes; format=flowed The report I read a long time ago stated the rpm to be 7500 not 6000. =20= It did not mean much to me since it was with a carb and Mazda Trix's =20 intake manifold. I would think 215 hp at 6400 rpm (same as =20 PowerSport) would make most people very happy. I can see no reason =20 why it cannot be easily achieved. Extrapolate from there to 7500 =20 rpm. Jerry On May 13, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: > > > I'm inclinded to agree, Tracy. I believe PowerSport claimed 215Hp =20 > for their P port installation - which appears realist. In fact, =20 > assuming 100% Ve and a best power A/F ratio of 12.65 it looks like =20 > you would need to turn over 7500 rpm to get 240 HP. > > You can further enrich the mixture and pick up some additional HP, =20 > and perhaps get a Ve greater than 100% with some induction/exhaust =20 > tunning, but still seems a bit much to get 240HP at 6000rpm without =20= > forced induction. > > I also found this message fragment regarding the dyno test, I =20 > presume that Mazdrix/Lamar will put this mod into production given =20 > the potential market for it. > > "Mazdatrix recently dyno=92d a N/A peripheral-ported 13B for Paul =20 > Lamar at 250hp @ 6000rpm, running a carburetor. That is an easy =20 > 125hp/rotor, and 250 hp from a 195# engine." > > > In my research, I pulled up the data on the 4 rotor race engine =20 > that Mazda was so sucessful with which used a PP and slide throttle =20= > (similar in concept to Paul's) and adjustable telescoping inlets =20 > to tune the inlet to the engine rpm. This engine also had 3 spark =20 > plugs per housing and 10:1 compression rotors. > > The attached graph (apologize for its quality - but, best I could =20 > do) shows that at 6000 rpm (power oriented settings rather than =20 > fuel efficient settings), the engine produced a total of around =20 > 360KW which equates to around 482 HP. So given 4 rotors are =20 > producing that it would equate to 482/4 =3D 120.5 HP/ Rotor. > > Assuming it scales linearly - then 2 rotors should give 241 HP at =20 > 6000 rpm. Interesting that Paul's engine does better at 250 Hp =20 > than produced by the Mazda racing team without the 3 spark plugs, =20 > telescoping inlets or 10:1 compression rotor. Humm, Perhaps the =20 > racing teams should consider hiring Paul. > > That said, unless you have/know the actually conditions under =20 > which the dyno test is being done and the points the data is taken =20 > at, there is simply a lot of room for "interpretation". > > Ed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Tracy Crook > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:02 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question > > Outstanding is right. It's so outstanding that I tend to put it in =20= > the same category as the other info he has dispensed (I.e., =20 > smoke). I could be wrong though. All things being equal, the P =20 > Port motor should make more power than the sideport engine. Just =20 > not sure it is THAT much more. Everet Hatch was able to make a =20 > little over 210 HP at 6000 with carefully tuned long p-port runners =20= > after much R&D. I do believe those numbers. > > > Tracy > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Lehanover@aol.com > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:49 AM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question > > In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:20:56 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, =20 > atlasyts@bellsouth.net writes: > 240HP at 6000 RPM. > > That is outstanding HP, even on a California dyno. Any port =20 > pictures or porting open and close figures? > > Sounds like the one to replicate. A typical Weber intake system =20 > from a race shop would be quite short. Not ideal for 6,000 RPM. =20 > Better at 9,500 to 10,000 RPM, > looking for 335 HP. > > Lynn E. Hanover > > > > See what's free at AOL.com. > <4 Roto Powers.jpg> > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/=20 > flyrotary/List.html Jerry Hey STOL 701 --Apple-Mail-4-1062858263 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 The report I read a long time = ago stated the rpm to be 7500 not 6000. It did not mean much to me since = it was with a carb and Mazda Trix's intake manifold.=A0 =A0 =A0I would = think 215 hp at 6400 rpm (same as PowerSport) would make most people = very happy. =A0 I can see no reason why it cannot be easily achieved.=A0 = Extrapolate from there to 7500 rpm. =A0 =A0Jerry


On May 13, 2007, at = 3:32 PM, Ed Anderson wrote:

=
=A0

I'm = inclinded to agree, Tracy.=A0 I believe PowerSport claimed 215Hp for = their P port installation - which appears realist.=A0=A0=A0 In fact, = assuming 100% Ve=A0and a best power A/F ratio of 12.65 it looks like you = would need to turn=A0over 7500 rpm=A0 =A0to get 240 HP.=A0
=
=A0
You can further enrich the mixture and pick up = some additional HP, and perhaps get a Ve greater than 100% with some = induction/exhaust tunning, but still seems a bit much to get 240HP at = 6000rpm without forced induction.=A0
=A0
I also found this message fragment regarding the dyno=A0test, = I presume that Mazdrix/Lamar will put this mod into production given the = potential market for it.
=A0
"Mazdatrix recently dyno=92d a N/A = peripheral-ported 13B for Paul Lamar at 250hp @ 6000rpm, running a = carburetor.=A0 That is an easy 125hp/rotor, and 250 hp from a 195# = engine."
=A0
=A0
In my = research, I pulled up the data on the 4 rotor race engine that Mazda was = so sucessful with which used a PP and slide throttle (similar in concept = to Paul's) and adjustable =A0telescoping inlets to tune the inlet to the = engine rpm.=A0 This engine also=A0had 3 spark plugs per housing and 10:1 = compression rotors.=A0
=A0
=A0The = attached graph (apologize for its quality - but, best I could do)=A0 = shows that at 6000 rpm (power oriented settings rather than fuel = efficient settings), the engine produced a total of around 360KW which = equates to around 482 HP.=A0 So given 4 rotors are producing that it = would equate to 482/4 =3D 120.5 =A0HP/ Rotor.=A0
=A0
=A0Assuming it scales linearly - then 2 rotors should give = 241 HP at 6000 rpm.=A0 Interesting that=A0Paul's =A0engine does better = at 250 Hp than =A0produced by the Mazda racing team without the 3 spark = plugs, telescoping inlets or 10:1 compression rotor.=A0=A0Humm, =A0Perhaps= the racing teams should consider hiring Paul.
=A0
That said, unless you have/know =A0the actually conditions = under which the dyno test is being done and the points the data is taken = at, there is simply=A0 a lot of room for "interpretation".=A0=A0 =
=A0
Ed
=A0
=A0
----- Original Message -----
From: Tracy Crook =
Sent: = Sunday, May 13, 2007 12:02 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question
=

Outstanding is right.=A0 It's so outstanding = that I tend to put it in the same category as the other info he has = dispensed=A0 (I.e., smoke).=A0=A0 I could be wrong though.=A0 All = things being equal, the P Port motor should make more power than the = sideport engine.=A0 Just not sure it is THAT much more.=A0 Everet = Hatch was able to make a little over 210 HP at 6000 with carefully = tuned long p-port runners after much R&D.=A0 I do believe those = numbers.
=A0
=A0
Tracy
=
=
----- Original Message -----
=
Sent: = Saturday, May 12, 2007 9:49 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 smoke question
=

In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:20:56 A.M. = Eastern Daylight Time, atlasyts@bellsouth.net = writes:
240HP at 6000 = RPM.
=A0
=
That is outstanding HP, even on a California dyno. Any port = pictures or porting open and close figures?
=A0
=
=A0Sounds like the one to replicate. A typical Weber intake = system from a race shop would be quite short. Not ideal for 6,000 = RPM. Better at 9,500 to 10,000 RPM,
looking for 335 = HP.
=A0
Lynn E. = Hanover=A0



= See what's free at AOL.com. =
<4 Roto = Powers.jpg>
--
Homepage:=A0 = http://www.flyrotary.com/
=

Jerry Hey STOL = 701


 =

= --Apple-Mail-4-1062858263--