X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3858289 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 03:32:02 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA4CD173A08 for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:31:21 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id ECC90BEC06E for ; Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:31:19 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <09F1793C27E543F89E480281C8CA6788@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] To P or Not to P - port that is: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:31:25 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01CA3885.D8CB7A20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 090917-0, 09/17/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01CA3885.D8CB7A20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well said Ed, as usual. One thing I noticed about Everatt's PP was the diameter of the intake. = My calculations (if correct) confirmed that the diameter is correct for = out application and RPM - 44mm. For anyone that is interested. The 2" = suggested by the racing people are indeed for higher RPM and reduce = inlet velocity for our needs. The same for tuned length, it has to be = for our RPM. George (down under) ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, September 07, 2009 7:56 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or Not to P - port that is: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or two? While there is no question that P porting will provide more power and = its reputation for poor idle (whether deserved or not) at low rpm does = not affect its suitability for our use, I think there are other = considerations. IF you can buy a properly make P port or have the = knowledge and machinery to do it yourself correctly , it might be well = worth doing. However, I have found that approaches designed from max = power out put at high rpm may not always be compatible with longevity or = reliability, factors of most importance in aircraft - so you need to = check into that. I tried a Rotary Racing manifold early on and while it = was probably great for a rotary turning 9000+ rpm, it really performed = poorly at 5000-6000 rpm. Once I replaced it with an intake design from = my engine's actual operating range - power improved considerably. =20 I, for one, found that building my own aircraft and converting a = pretty much stock 13B for aircraft use was about all I could handle back = almost 15 years ago. With the knowledge on this list that is now pretty = much a straight forward thing - but still a lot of work. I fly a 13B = rotated 90 deg so that the Plugs are UP - so I am certainly not against = experimenting with the rotary engine.=20 =20 But, I have know of several folks who tried P porting own their own = and ran into a much bigger challenge than they had anticipated. For one = thing, it turns out the best P port parameters for aircraft use are = different than that used by the all-out racers. A second thing is some = folks have run into challenges in sealing the coolant galley after = cutting the hole in the rotor housing, the interface to the steel sheath = inside the rotor housing also needs to be done correctly as well. All = challenges that can be overcome - but require time and $$. =20 So can it be done? - certainly it can be done. Is it the best approach = for what you have in mind - only you can decide that. But, the more = different you are from the stock engine the more benefit and the more = disadvantage you will encounter. While some early experimenters - = Everret Hatch comes to mind (whose project was sold to PowerSport) who = put one in an Rv-4 that Allen Tole? Flew to a screaming take off and = climb out at Sun & Fun - before blowing a bearing in the PSRU (NOT a RWS = PSRU)- showed some initial promises for the P port in aircraft - But, I = have not seen any follow up or growth in that area for aircraft. =20 The real question is the benefit worth the extra effort - I think many = have decided the stock engine perhaps with turbo is the way to go. I = think the P port is an elegant approach to getting more power - but, = more of a challenge than I'm interested in - and it would not do a thing = for me given the way I fly. Naturally the flight environment and needs = of others will vary from my requirements. =20 =20 Bill Jepson already mentioned the simplification of the intake (at = least space wise) of the intake. It is also the lightest modification = you can make to produce that kind of power as it should end up weighing = a bit less than a stock 13B and certainly less than a 13B with a Turbo. =20 So if you are up to the challenge - go for it, but be aware it is a = challenge. =20 Best Regards =20 Ed =20 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of WRJJRS@aol.com Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 3:07 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 Gonzalo, Sorry to be contrary, but in my opinion the ONLY way to go for a = flying rotary is P-port. All of the original Power Sport engines (the = Everette Hatch P.S.) ran P-ports. The manifolding for a P-port engine is = vastly easier. In fact Hatch and Steve Beckham built several engines = with P-ports that even ran reverse rotation so they could get proper = propeller rotation with some gearboxes. You can even P-port an Renesis = and it still works. The reason that Mazda isn't P-porting their race = cars has nothing to do with if P-porting is better, it is racing = organizations requirements. The reason for the side port Renesis is for = emissions and low RPM fuel economy. Those are areas that are only = important in a CAR. The typical aircraft runs 50% to 90% ALL THE TIME = and P-ports are much better at mid to high RPMS. The Mazda Le Mans = winning engine used P-ports and they were running with a fuel economy = formula. (the fuel was limited) For high output P-ports just work = better. Bill Jepson Gonzalo, A lot of people talk about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is = doing it with a rotary that they plan to fly behind. If it was such a = good thing, Mazda would be P-Porting their cars. Instead they are going = away even from the peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. =20 If 200 HP will do it for you the Renesis is the way to go. This = process of putting an alternative engine in a plane is hard enough = without violating the KISS principle. Put in a Renesis, no turbo, no P-Port. Bill B =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2009 5:57 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two? =20 Gonzalo, I don't know if the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it = did. All turbo 13B's require low compression rotors. =20 =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01CA3885.D8CB7A20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Well said Ed, as usual.
 One thing I noticed about = Everatt's PP was=20 the diameter of the intake. My calculations (if correct) confirmed = that the=20 diameter is correct for out application and RPM - 44mm. For anyone that = is=20 interested. The 2" suggested by the racing people are indeed for higher = RPM and=20 reduce inlet velocity for our needs. The same for tuned length, it has = to be for=20 our RPM.
George (down under)
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Monday, September 07, = 2009 7:56=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or = Not to P -=20 port that is: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

While there = is no=20 question that P porting will provide more power and its reputation for = poor=20 idle (whether deserved or not) at low rpm  does not affect its=20 suitability for our use, I think there are other considerations.  = IF you=20 can buy a properly make P port or have the knowledge and machinery to = do it=20 yourself correctly , it might be well worth doing.  However, I = have found=20 that approaches  designed from max power out put at high rpm may = not=20 always be compatible with longevity or reliability, factors of most = importance=20 in aircraft =96 so you need to check into that.  I tried a Rotary = Racing=20 manifold early on and while it was probably great for a rotary turning = 9000+=20 rpm, it really performed poorly at 5000-6000 rpm.  Once I = replaced it=20 with an intake design from my engine=92s actual operating range =96 = power improved=20 considerably.

 

I, for one, = found=20 that building my own aircraft and converting a pretty much stock 13B = for=20 aircraft use was about all I could handle back almost 15 years = ago.  With=20 the knowledge on this list that is now pretty much a straight forward = thing -=20 but still a lot of work.  I fly a 13B rotated 90 deg so that the = Plugs=20 are UP =96 so I am certainly not against experimenting with the rotary = engine.=20

 

But, I have = know of=20 several folks who tried  P porting own their own and ran into a = much=20 bigger challenge than they had anticipated.  For one thing, it = turns out=20 the best P port parameters for aircraft use are different than that = used by=20 the all-out racers.  A second thing is some folks have run into=20 challenges in sealing the coolant galley after cutting the hole in the = rotor=20 housing, the interface to the steel sheath inside the rotor housing = also needs=20 to be done correctly as well.  All challenges that can be = overcome =96 but=20 require time and $$.

 

So can it = be done? =96=20 certainly it can be done. Is it the best approach for what you have in = mind =96=20 only you can decide that.   But, the more different you are = from the=20 stock engine the more benefit and the more disadvantage you will=20 encounter.  While some early experimenters =96 Everret Hatch = comes to mind=20 (whose project was sold to PowerSport) who put one in an Rv-4 that = Allen Tole?=20 Flew to a screaming take off and climb out at Sun & Fun =96 before = blowing a=20 bearing in the PSRU (NOT a RWS PSRU)- showed some initial promises for = the P=20 port in aircraft =96 But, I have not seen any follow up or growth in = that area=20 for aircraft.

 

The real = question is=20 the benefit worth the extra effort =96 I think many have decided the = stock=20 engine perhaps with turbo is the way to go.  I think the P port = is an=20 elegant approach to getting more power =96 but, more of a challenge = than I=92m=20 interested in =96 and it would not do a thing for me given the way I = fly. =20 Naturally the flight environment and needs of others will vary from my = requirements. 

 

Bill Jepson = already=20 mentioned the simplification of the intake (at least space wise) of = the=20 intake.  It is also the lightest modification you can make to = produce=20 that kind of power as it should  end up weighing a bit less than = a stock=20 13B and certainly less than a 13B with a = Turbo.

 

So if you = are up to=20 the challenge =96 go for it, but be aware it is a=20 challenge.

 

Best=20 Regards

 

Ed

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A = N494BW Rotary=20 Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.r= otaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of WRJJRS@aol.com
Sent: Sunday, September 06, = 2009 3:07=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three = or=20 two?

 

Gonzalo,

Sorry to = be=20 contrary, but in my opinion the ONLY way to go for a flying rotary is = P-port.=20 All of the original Power Sport engines (the Everette Hatch P.S.) ran = P-ports.=20 The manifolding for a P-port engine is vastly easier. In fact Hatch = and Steve=20 Beckham built several engines with P-ports that even ran reverse = rotation so=20 they could get proper propeller rotation with some gearboxes. You can = even=20 P-port an Renesis and it still works. The reason that Mazda isn't = P-porting=20 their race cars has nothing to do with if P-porting is better, it is = racing=20 organizations requirements. The reason for the side port Renesis is = for=20 emissions and low RPM fuel economy. Those are areas that are only = important in=20 a CAR. The typical aircraft runs 50% to 90% ALL THE TIME and P-ports = are much=20 better at mid to high RPMS. The Mazda Le Mans winning engine used = P-ports and=20 they were running with a fuel economy formula. (the fuel was limited) = For high=20 output P-ports just work = better.

Bill=20 Jepson

Gonzalo,

A lot of = people=20 talk about peripheral porting rotaries but nobody is doing it with a = rotary=20 that they plan to fly behind.  If it was such a good thing, = Mazda would=20 be P-Porting their cars.  Instead they are going away even from = the=20 peripheral port for the exhaust with the Renesis. =20

If 200 HP = will do=20 it for you the Renesis is the way to go.  This process of = putting an=20 alternative engine in a plane is hard enough without violating the=20 KISS=20 principle.

Put in a = Renesis,=20 no turbo, no P-Port.

Bill=20 B

 

From:=20 Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 On Behalf Of George=20 Lendich
Sent: = Sunday,=20 August 23, 2009 5:57 PM
To:=20 Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Three or=20 two?

 

Gonzalo,

I don't = know if=20 the Renesis has a turbo version, I didn't think it did. All = turbo 13B's=20 require low compression rotors.

 

 



__________=20 Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature = database=20 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET = NOD32=20 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_005B_01CA3885.D8CB7A20--