Return-Path: Received: from mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.196] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP-TLS id 795046 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:55:35 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.196; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d220-236-252-188.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.252.188]) by mail15.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j2FMsjPY024153 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:54:48 +1100 Message-ID: <005c01c529b2$662c8b80$bcfcecdc@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Peripheral port 26b Le Mans paper Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:57:43 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 > I am sure many will have seen this already: > > There is a paper on the R26b Le Mans engine at www.mymazdarotary.com under > the `Mazda rotary general' tab. > This peripheral port motor used a variable intake length and crude scaling > from the drawings in the above paper suggests an intake runner diameter of > just over 2 inches and a length of 22 inches at 6000rpm and something around > 2 inches shorter at 7k. Peak torque for this 4 rotor (448ft lb) occurred at > 6,500rpm when runner length appears to be about 21inches. > > A couple of questions: > Jerry: why is your inlet port round - in two strokes they are more often > oval, presumably to maximise flow for a given `valve opening'. I guess this > is convenience for manufacturing??? > > Anybody: does the PP geometry make it much easier to make Al end plates and > is this the easy route to much lighter engines? > > Lastly does anyone know where I can get some more information on PPs? > > cheers > mike Mike The estimates on the manifold tuned tube are correct! I'm sure Jerry will answer as well but the answer to most of your questions is Yes! The round PP is easier to machine, the square with round corners is slightly better, but superimposed, there's not a lot in it. The aluminium end housing are MUCH easier to make with out having to consider ports. The aluminium end housing are lighter approx 30 lbs. As both mine ( current development) and Richard Sohn's have steel wear surfaces ( but different designs) the savings aren't as great as one would ultimately desire, but the coating on aluminium aren't all that good. Det Gun is about the best and horribly expensive. There isn't a lot on the internet on PP it's a black art! Basically the inlet tube diameter / router housing diameter, Volumetric Efficiency is governed a lot by inlet velocity. Jerry has it under control for you USA chaps. I agree with his assumptions, however there are those who don't agree. George ( down under)