X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Christian And Tam" Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.220.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8054041 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 01:09:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.44; envelope-from=christamarmc@gmail.com Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so9469426pac.0 for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:08:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject :message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:to; bh=qwKwKmXYKEwmlQeWt7WLdFbQctrZPvfXEGPDO5mvFCs=; b=n93Nj/famYvCbDxrdv8xqL9Ad4qJNbKkZjuKBQfvhTGUjpg9RZfnG8VGco8dl6uzgq bGtaKd/MtzgydXZGcFmAQA6AHbIiNl11r2oEpwm2ZWUp1sV8qlyH3LqH0bib9COw69SV ne5n46ASONLyvEHvQWmrMqEaa2+i3h2hGUXzevRAfwUD+6WCXnwPmStHKEIpTj+4D0io bbiAelmXrksYdhY292CQh1jYboyMjqLuoi7HhgUNEyrRZv8Q62BxJAKsJrjgneOVeaG2 iXlkMYXwsH7a7zVvmnZdEch7YQxzdwJFvybSjJEIFdzjk/ayGog0kfwYt3+RIbnPgibU Doqw== X-Received: by 10.68.195.3 with SMTP id ia3mr50884042pbc.106.1444194514292; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [21.227.244.167] ([1.128.63.81]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xo2sm6649488pbb.48.2015.10.06.22.08.32 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 06 Oct 2015 22:08:33 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-315E43BF-0FE7-454A-821F-806801571EAE Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Message-Id: Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 15:08:35 +1000 References: In-Reply-To: To: Rotary motors in aircraft X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B411) --Apple-Mail-315E43BF-0FE7-454A-821F-806801571EAE Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would agree, yes it worked out to be allot more simpler running 2 x 2" run= ners than playing with 4 in my opinion and easier to manufactur etc =46rom modifying my engine from a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 po= rt intake I gained a good 30-40 hp and 15 k top end The noise also isn't that bad on my renises as I've attached a custom built h= otdog underneath with inox baffling which works well Sent from my iPhone > On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure wrot= e: >=20 > Trying to ensure I have a complete knowledge before I make my decision, >=20 > The P port as shown for the website is exactly what we are looking for. St= raight forward power at high rpm. The noise is a factor of energy output wh= ich is the same. =20 >=20 > 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 of power and engine exhaust/noise= to handle. >=20 > If I use a P port and get x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is t= he exact same z output. It was just easier to get x amount of air into the s= ystem. >=20 > Or am I completely off base. >=20 >=20 >=20 >> 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." w= rote: >>> You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this webs= ite. 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 t= he 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 getti= ng that power NA. >>>=20 >>> If I P port the intake it will be easier to make 200 or more. however it= is just easier to get air into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it i= s 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/Li= st.html >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/Li= st.html --Apple-Mail-315E43BF-0FE7-454A-821F-806801571EAE Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I would agree, yes it worked out to be= allot more simpler running 2 x 2" runners than playing with 4 in my opinion= and  easier to manufactur etc
=46rom modifying my engine fro= m a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 port intake I gained a good 30-4= 0 hp and 15 k top end
The noise also isn't that bad on my renises a= s I've attached a custom built hotdog underneath with inox baffling which wo= rks well


Sent from my iPhone

On 7 Oct 2015, a= t 1:34 pm, Mark McClure <f= lyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Trying to ensure I have a complete knowledge before I make my de= cision,

The P port as shown for the website is exac= tly what we are looking for. Straight forward power at high rpm.  The n= oise is a factor of energy output which is the same.  

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

If I use a P port and get x amou= nt of air and give y amount of fuel it is the exact same z output.  It w= as just easier to get x amount of air into the system.

<= div>Or am I completely off base.



On Oct 6, 2= 015, 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-315E43BF-0FE7-454A-821F-806801571EAE--