The side porting on the Mazda is limited by the proximity of the coolant passages so unless you go to something like a Bridge port (NOT recommended for AC applications), radical is not in the cards. "Street porting" is all you need at the rpms we run. A conservative Peripheral port can be a good thing for power even at lower rpm but that ends up being a monster obstacle in actually finishing and flying the airplane. At least that has been how it has worked out for the builders who chose it so far.
Just my opinion but I think Rotomax did the peripheral port to get back some of the power they loose by charge cooling. Note that the engine is about the same chamber size as the Mazda but power per rotor is significantly less (but it does weigh less too). Their Turbo engine makes about the same power as a NA Mazda. Still, for a charge cooled engine, I think they did a fine job and I hope the company succeeds.
Tracy
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Patrick Panzera < panzera@experimental-aviation.com> wrote:
Hey gang,
Has anyone done any radical porting on their 13b?
I need an image, even if it's from the web, of the most radical side porting
possible.
I'm doing an exhaustive article on the RotaMax engine for the next issue of
CONTACT! Magazine. One of the things they do a little differently is the use
of both side and peripheral ports. For low RPM compatibility, they use a
butterfly to shut off the peripheral port and run off just the side ports...
which they themselves are HUGE!
I need a comparison image to establish just what is considered a huge side
port for a Mazda engine.
Thanks!!!
Pat
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|