X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "James R. Osborn" Received: from mail-pa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.220.47] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055167 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 12:39:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.47; envelope-from=rxcited@gmail.com Received: by pacfv12 with SMTP id fv12so26573298pac.2 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=72ORgys6blJguFzqCNdFVPIC1p35U9P3Abg/+21qivk=; b=jjiVpoHFFk9+yfF/1gVY7GRZOq7WT4YM6jscHqds7TzBlpbO6UX9co1uNmH2R9E2CS AgVgakR9zSby5fc49dAGtwwZ6872m6Tz3FJuJMrl+6gaCRH7i4UijXQeC1pDrnllGzqQ g2UsFPNwDTViJbb5LOgIRJCrGbnKKHuIbXJKlwfQxs6GCPP9bWgBCcHK4AiCYSSMFdHo /KPzmLT8i0OX/tkDtqIBaPtqIpebbsBZyef2bfE/kEnPxUaNrx7oL2snklh847Ur0k8K Exn8eYAo9j731468/vM/Zf/l9adsyC7c8L/LFPHXKXBDnL8DWpJAdEpGtOns0hTknxxY J+aQ== X-Received: by 10.68.232.162 with SMTP id tp2mr2139678pbc.162.1444235965080; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:39:25 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from jrosborn-m76.lbl.gov (jrosborn-m76.lbl.gov. [128.3.128.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id fa14sm40635526pac.8.2015.10.07.09.39.24 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2015 09:39:24 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7DA415EB-9589-4D84-855D-FD2CDFDFF021" Message-Id: <31C1213B-1CEB-4BD0-BBA3-B2CD79398263@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] To P or not... Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 09:39:21 -0700 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) --Apple-Mail=_7DA415EB-9589-4D84-855D-FD2CDFDFF021 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii One more question to throw into the mix. A friend is building a Cozy = and has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though = compression and leak down tests remain to be done. He is now thinking = to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go P-port. Is it true that = there is no intake runner tuning for a turbo setup? Yes it is more = complicated to go turbo (than peripheral), but there is also the = advantages at altitude. So the extra question is: P-port or turbo? James R. Osborn rxcited@gmail.com > On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry = wrote: >=20 > Christian, > =20 > While you are doing that, you could also include some info on your = pporting of the Renesis. How did you know where to bore the holes for = proper timing and how did you seal the water jacket? I assume that you = just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or something? > =20 > Thanks, > One of the other Bills > =20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20= > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 AM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... > =20 > can you give details on your custom built hotdog with inox? baffling. > =20 > Thanks > Bill Schertz > =20 > From: Christian And Tam > Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... > =20 > 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 from a not so good 6 port intake to a = simple 2 port 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 hotdog underneath with inox baffling which works well >=20 >=20 > Sent from my iPhone >=20 > On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure > wrote: >=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. Straight forward power at high rpm. The noise is a factor of = energy output which 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 the exact same z output. It was just easier to get x amount of = air into the system. >> =20 >> Or am I completely off base. >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson = > = wrote: >>=20 >>> Bob, >>> One thing that everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts = are almost 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 make a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for = an aircraft. The rotary makes a better aircraft engine than a car = engine! >>>=20 >>> Bill Jepson >>>=20 >>> On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." = > = wrote: >>> You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this = website. See bottom entry. http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm = And it is loud!!! 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 the 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 = getting 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 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/List.html = >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> -- >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html = --Apple-Mail=_7DA415EB-9589-4D84-855D-FD2CDFDFF021 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii One more question to throw into the mix.  A friend is building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently believed to be fresh though compression and leak down tests remain to be done.  He is now thinking to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go P-port.  Is it true that there is no intake runner tuning for a turbo setup?  Yes it is more complicated to go turbo (than peripheral), but there is also the advantages at altitude.

So the extra question is:  P-port or turbo?

James R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com

On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Christian,

 

While you are doing that, you could also include some info on your pporting of the Renesis.  How did you know where to bore the holes for proper timing and how did you seal the water jacket?  I assume that you just plugged up the original ports with JB weld or something?

 

Thanks,

One of the other Bills

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:04 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...

 

can you give details on your custom built hotdog with inox? baffling.

 

Thanks

Bill Schertz

 

Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...

 

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

From modifying my engine from a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 port 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 hotdog underneath with inox baffling which works well



Sent from my iPhone


On 7 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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. Straight forward power at high rpm.  The noise 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 engine I give y amount of fuel and I have z amount of power and engine exhaust/noise to handle.

 

If I use 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 system.

 

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 almost 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 make a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem for an aircraft. The rotary makes a better aircraft engine than a car engine!

Bill Jepson

On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM, "Rogers, Bob J." <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

You should read the description of the effects of P-porting at this website.  See bottom entry.   http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm  And it is loud!!!  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jebl2pWaiWI

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 the 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 that power NA.

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 is not 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.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



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


--Apple-Mail=_7DA415EB-9589-4D84-855D-FD2CDFDFF021--