X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Mark McClure" Received: from st11p02im-asmtp002.me.com ([17.172.220.114] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8053834 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:37:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=17.172.220.114; envelope-from=markmcclure@me.com Received: from [10.0.1.19] (ip68-0-45-88.hr.hr.cox.net [68.0.45.88]) by st11p02im-asmtp002.me.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.35.0 64bit (built Mar 31 2015)) with ESMTPSA id <0NVT01EJYZDB7G20@st11p02im-asmtp002.me.com> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 03:36:48 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2015-10-07_04:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 kscore.is_bulkscore=0 compositescore=0.889541662561925 phishscore=0 kscore.is_spamscore=0 rbsscore=0.889541662561925 recipient_to_sender_totalscore=0 spamscore=0 urlsuspectscore=0.889541662561925 adultscore=0 kscore.compositescore=0 circleOfTrustscore=0 suspectscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_totalscore=0 bulkscore=0 recipient_domain_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 recipient_to_sender_domain_totalscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1412110000 definitions=main-1510070059 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-B7CC470A-D724-4D12-A4F2-F38C786AA58F Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit MIME-version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Message-id: Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 23:34:55 -0400 References: In-reply-to: To: Rotary motors in aircraft X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12A365) --Apple-Mail-B7CC470A-D724-4D12-A4F2-F38C786AA58F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Trying to ensure I have a complete knowledge before I make my decision, The P port as shown for the website is exactly what we are looking for. Stra= ight forward power at high rpm. The noise is a factor of energy output whic= h is the same. =20 If I tune a 4 port runner system and get x amount of air into the engine I g= ive y amount of fuel and I have z amount of power and engine exhaust/noise t= o handle. If I use a P port and get x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is th= e exact same z output. It was just easier to get x amount of air into the s= ystem. Or am I completely off base. > On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson w= rote: >=20 > Bob, > One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are a= lmost always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just fine. Good= balance and vibration control are the key to good idle. The engine won't ma= ke a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for an aircraft. The r= otary makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine! >=20 > Bill Jepson >=20 >> On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." wr= ote: >> You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this websi= te. See bottom entry. http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm And it is l= oud!!! See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI >>=20 >> Bob J. Rogers >>=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] >> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:33 AM >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or not... >>=20 >> I understand the benefits of P porting the engine. And I think I know th= e answer to my question but thought I'd verify. >>=20 >> Looking for 180-200 hp. I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b. >> If the intake and exhaust are built right I should have no problem gettin= g that power NA. >>=20 >> If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it i= s just easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it is= not by any means more fuel efficient? >>=20 >> So therefore if I don't need the power I don't need to P port. >>=20 >> Mark >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/Lis= t.html >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/Lis= t.html --Apple-Mail-B7CC470A-D724-4D12-A4F2-F38C786AA58F Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Trying to ensure I have a complete kno= wledge before I make my decision,

The P port as sho= wn for the website is exactly what we are looking for. Straight forward powe= r at high rpm.  The noise is a factor of energy output which is the sam= e.  

If I tune a 4 port runner system and get x= amount of air into the engine I give y amount of fuel and I have z amount o= f power and engine exhaust/noise to handle.

If I us= e a P port and get x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is the exact= same z output.  It was just easier to get x amount of air into the sys= tem.

Or am I completely off base.


On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:=

Bob,
One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are alm= ost always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just fine. Good b= alance and vibration control are the key to good idle. The engine won't make= a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for an aircraft. The rot= ary makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine!

Bill Jepson

On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." <flyrotary@lancaironline.net&g= t; wrote:
You should r= ead the description of the effects of P-porting at this website.  See b= ottom entry.   http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm  And it is loud!!!  See https://www.youtube.= com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI

Bob J. Rogers

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or not...

I understand the benefits of P porting the engine.  And I think I know t= he answer to my question but thought I'd verify.

Looking for 180-200 hp.  I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port 13b. If the intake and exhaust are built right I should have no problem getting t= hat power NA.

If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it is j= ust easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it is no= t by any means more fuel efficient?

So therefore if I don't need the power I don't need to P port.

Mark


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.l= ancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.l= ancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
= --Apple-Mail-B7CC470A-D724-4D12-A4F2-F38C786AA58F--