X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Stephen Izett" Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8055850 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 20:36:52 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.46; envelope-from=steveize@gmail.com Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so36136952pad.1 for ; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:36:17 -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=h/Hd/fMMmbk8HMcQCWCBGkSOx9ZDjjMc6DHBpHAKhus=; b=z7r8FUfJUuj99ecO6efnT1NJgu7KtsvI66p3G4nM3FPcA5/XPBtCSTiaaq5K6Xp4wv E+3tsWxDJALXVZeci5EiAZRbOQnK88bTZlRAVy/7fELCTu254gAGGY8rNsLF1s4FASG6 SCvJgHI70TYFuMOCmiq2D8NAmXIShf+dcSRzFHf+cMf47KprUP62csJWGWf6OHPfR0/u +WoUUI2Ey3KmmB+cvfQva78N4EcC0zt1ktl1FRFayi5Xb/h5IODOjxWUJwBV1viR/eZ0 U7oLq29EgAkGfxYJSkfrXLevdte4g74e9/Pg7mPrpCCZFDTdDkFpUJNg7jgy5OIvhEK+ MJHg== X-Received: by 10.66.141.137 with SMTP id ro9mr4399429pab.41.1444264577190; Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.1.1.5] (58-7-143-96.dyn.iinet.net.au. [58.7.143.96]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id wi10sm9485329pbc.31.2015.10.07.17.36.13 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:36:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-From: Stephen Izett Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4E641140-A562-4CE2-9205-E0AE6944B98D" Message-Id: <3B44CB88-C3C0-4BB7-BEEE-553772EB9D7A@icloud.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 08:36:08 +0800 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) --Apple-Mail=_4E641140-A562-4CE2-9205-E0AE6944B98D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Bill and Bill I though the confusion here (and I could be very wrong) is between two = different concepts. One being the organ (resonant) tuning of the gas = flow in the intake, common to any reciprocating engine or gas flow for = that matter. The other being the (Two Rotor specific) dynamic Charging concept, = whereby the supersonic shockwave of the port closure is directed towards = increasing the charge of the next rotor chamber in a two rotor. Renesis utilizes a Variable Intake Valve to leverage this effect at = higher RPM. The 26B only relied upon resonant tuning and not the intake charging = effect. I think the intake charging can only work on a two rotor as other = chambers in the case of a 3 or 4 rotor would mess up the opportunity to = use the reflected energy. Can others comment on my thinking? I=E2=80=99ve tried to utilise both =E2=80=9Ctuning=E2=80=9D effects in = our 4 port Renesis that will have its first full power runs hopefully = tomorrow. I have included a Variable Intake Valve that I hope will provide extra = charge at somewhere around 7K. Steve Izett > On 8 Oct 2015, at 8:03 am, William Jepson = wrote: >=20 > Bill, > You couldn't be more incorrect. The P port is VERY tuneable. Witness = the LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes to improve driveability = across the rev range. You just need to alter your thinking a bit. The = rotor IS THE VALVE. When in the intake phase tuning length is very = effective. A turbo works similarly, but length isn't as critical. = Obstruction is more important in the turbo version. If the path is clean = and free of sharp corners the turbo doesn't work as hard and doesn't = heat the intake charge as much. Less need for an intercooler. >=20 > Bill Jepson >=20 > On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" > wrote: > If I understand the situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t=E2= =80=A6.a tuned intake would give a turbo more power at a given boost = pressure than it would have untuned at that same boost pressure. = However, the benefit might not be worth the effort due to the small = incremental difference. >=20 > On the other hand, a P-port is never closed so there would be = negligible reflected waves to use for tuning. The rotor apex seal = slides by the opening of the port and slices off the fuel/air charge = that is going to one rotor face and it starts to be directed to the = other face. Think of the intake air column as a sausage that is being = sliced off as the apex goes by the open port. Very little reflectivity = to use for tuning. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Or more likely, I could be wrong. >=20 > =20 >=20 > Bill >=20 > =20 >=20 > From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net = ]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:39 AM > To: Rotary motors in aircraft > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... >=20 > =20 >=20 > 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. >=20 > =20 >=20 > So the extra question is: P-port or turbo? >=20 > =20 >=20 > James R. Osborn > rxcited@gmail.com > =20 >=20 >> On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry = > = wrote: >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Christian, >>=20 >> =20 >>=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 >> =20 >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> One of the other Bills >>=20 >> =20 >>=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 >> =20 >>=20 >> can you give details on your custom built hotdog with inox? baffling. >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> Thanks >>=20 >> Bill Schertz >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> From: Christian And Tam >> Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08 PM >>=20 >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not... >>=20 >> =20 >>=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 >>=20 >> =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 >>=20 >> 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 >>=20 >> Sent from my iPhone >>=20 >>=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 >>> =20 >>>=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 >>> =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 >>> =20 >>>=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 >>> =20 >>>=20 >>> Or am I completely off base. >>>=20 >>> =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: >>>>=20 >>>> 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 = > =20 >=20 --Apple-Mail=_4E641140-A562-4CE2-9205-E0AE6944B98D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Hi Bill and Bill
I though the confusion here = (and I could be very wrong) is between two different concepts. One being = the organ (resonant) tuning of the gas flow in the intake, common to any = reciprocating engine or gas flow for that matter.
The= other being the (Two Rotor specific) dynamic Charging concept, whereby = the supersonic shockwave of the port closure is directed towards = increasing the charge of the next rotor chamber in a two = rotor.
Renesis utilizes a Variable Intake Valve to = leverage this effect at higher RPM.
The 26B only = relied upon resonant tuning and not the intake charging = effect.
I think the intake charging can only work = on a two rotor as other chambers in the case of a 3 or 4 rotor would = mess up the opportunity to use the reflected energy.
Can others comment on my thinking?

I=E2=80=99ve tried to utilise both = =E2=80=9Ctuning=E2=80=9D effects in our 4 port Renesis that will have = its first full power runs hopefully tomorrow.
I = have included a Variable Intake Valve that I hope will provide extra = charge at somewhere around 7K.

Steve Izett

On = 8 Oct 2015, at 8:03 am, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Bill,
You couldn't be more incorrect. The P port is VERY tuneable. Witness the = LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes to improve driveability = across the rev range. You just need to alter your thinking a bit. The = rotor IS THE VALVE. When in the intake phase tuning length is very = effective. A turbo works similarly, but length isn't as critical. = Obstruction is more important in the turbo version. If the path is clean = and free of sharp corners the turbo doesn't work as hard and doesn't = heat the intake charge as much. Less need for an intercooler.

Bill Jepson

On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

If I = understand the situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=A6.a tuned intake would give a turbo = more power at a given boost pressure than it would have untuned at that same boost pressure.  However, the benefit might not be worth the effort due = to the small incremental difference.

On = the other hand, a P-port is never closed so there would be negligible reflected waves to use for = tuning.  The rotor apex seal slides by the opening of the port and slices off the = fuel/air charge that is going to one rotor face and it starts to be directed to = the other face.  Think of the intake air column as a sausage that is = being sliced off as the apex goes by the open port.  Very little = reflectivity to use for tuning.

 

Or more likely, I could be wrong.

 

Bill

 

From:= Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent:= Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:39 AM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...

 

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

 

From:= Christian And Tam

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

To:= Rotary motors in aircraft

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

=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



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=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 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<= br class=3D"">


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= u class=3D"">

 


= --Apple-Mail=_4E641140-A562-4CE2-9205-E0AE6944B98D--