X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.12.137.3] (HELO imo-m22.mail.aol.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 974152 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:34:15 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.3; envelope-from=BMears9413@aol.com Received: from BMears9413@aol.com by imo-m22.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id q.269.54c8637 (15699) for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:33:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from mblk-d37 (mblk-d37.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.221]) by air-id05.mx.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP id MAILINID51-3d5343e93c535; Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:33:23 -0500 Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:33:23 -0500 Message-Id: <8C7FA5E66F510FC-CC4-CB9@mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com> From: bmears9413@aol.com References: Received: from 65.182.71.113 by mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.221) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:33:22 -0500 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 15106 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] RX-8 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MailBlocks_8C7FA5E66EDE9F4_CC4_CB6_mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.221 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MailBlocks_8C7FA5E66EDE9F4_CC4_CB6_mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Randy, If you can get either engine, go with the six port. The exhaust noise is the same on both. The six port is the only one thats going to get you the horsepower, and the four port is replaced often in RX8's. Altho I believe the only problem with them is they choose to not inject enough oil in them. Never the less, they're not lasting long and the 6 ports havent given any problems at all.' Bob Mears -----Original Message----- From: randy echtinaw To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:17:37 -0500 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/ ----------MailBlocks_8C7FA5E66EDE9F4_CC4_CB6_mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Randy,
If you can get either engine, go with the six port. The exhaust noise is the same on both. The six port is the only one thats going to get you the horsepower, and the four port is replaced often in RX8's. Altho I believe the only problem with them is they choose to not inject enough oil in them. Never the less, they're not lasting long and the 6 ports havent given any problems at all.'
 
Bob Mears
 
-----Original Message-----
From: randy echtinaw <rjechtinaw@ia4u.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 19:17:37 -0500
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/ 
----------MailBlocks_8C7FA5E66EDE9F4_CC4_CB6_mblk-d37.sysops.aol.com--