X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "James R. Osborn" Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.6) with ESMTPS id 8056652 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 10:01:07 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.45; envelope-from=rxcited@gmail.com Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so56128315pac.0 for ; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:00:32 -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=eneOuHk4FoO3MqfyUjIXk+EkPtK9BuUr0Oh1Uz7Dd1g=; b=wpx7Xh2WPIwtmR5Z3JpTC6ZI84XhK9MEtmePkf7DaJ9BKP+5/qH71WqNTEJBNwoBZg 02QTJjwPBGChRnTCdP13yIbFqcCQOIUKRAKji+dxcIucrjyF6jJnEkADz2ytnVz0tX5c PQlGyRxQUUiXhVg2VxlT8lRAkq0Uc43kn8UQLmuSgWswY32rTINYWAwHSQ10AHSWr9JP tV2ReWjSc8x//pxI3pCKycLv3T3i38/tlrqQHZ3bxSzpeuISMDqwvuwi43Q3CDxDzY4y c/6VmVK/ZxqjaUQYGnb9LoRa52pDEl4Hz7PL1OUhiJiffF5cpOpdTT9T3GD9dGhMR3e6 jB4g== X-Received: by 10.66.218.66 with SMTP id pe2mr8431751pac.13.1444312832146; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.15.44] (c-67-169-99-20.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [67.169.99.20]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dg2sm34583304pbb.9.2015.10.08.07.00.31 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 08 Oct 2015 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6A295C60-0A47-49F3-8F20-EBF76D76649D" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.0 \(3094\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] To P or not... Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 07:00:30 -0700 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3094) --Apple-Mail=_6A295C60-0A47-49F3-8F20-EBF76D76649D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Back to my question: P-Port pros: power, simple, reliable, NA cons: tuning, long intakes, rebuild (assuming you have a side port built = already) Turbo pros: power, tuning less of a factor, short intakes, use side port short = block, altitude compensation cons: more complicated, less reliable, more heat? We haven=E2=80=99t really discussed different compression rotors. But = the Renesis has high compression rotors and is less suitable to turbo = charging without altering the rotors, right? If you already have a = motor built with side ports and low compression rotors (13B REW, 20B), = it is ready for a turbo, but P-Port would entail a significant rebuild, = right? > On Oct 7, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Lehanover = wrote: >=20 > Not the case for a turbo installation. Both the exhaust and intake of = turbo systems are just long enough to mount the turbo. Once you have the = intake charge well above ambient pressure, not much length tuning is = needed. > =20 > The ports and runner sizes in the turbo irons are enormous. > =20 > In the normally aspirated Pport both intake and exhaust lengths and = diameters make a big difference. Note the Mistral runner lengths. ( a = side port engine). Similar lengths would put best power in a Pport at a = similar RPM. The biggest effect will be muffler design. NA rotaries tune = like dirt bikes. Very sensitive to exhaust length, diameter and back = pressure. The Le mans engine had adjustable inlet lengths because it was = an NA engine. > =20 > Lynn E. Hanover > =20 > In a message dated 10/7/2015 8:04:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, = flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes: > 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=_6A295C60-0A47-49F3-8F20-EBF76D76649D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Back to my question:

P-Port
pros: power, simple, reliable, = NA
cons: tuning, long intakes, rebuild (assuming = you have a side port built already)

Turbo
pros: power, = tuning less of a factor, short intakes, use side port short block, = altitude compensation
cons: more complicated, less = reliable, more heat?

We haven=E2=80=99t really discussed different compression = rotors.  But the Renesis has high compression rotors and is less = suitable to turbo charging without altering the rotors, right?  If = you already have a motor built with side ports and low compression = rotors (13B REW, 20B), it is ready for a turbo, but P-Port would entail = a significant rebuild, right?

On = Oct 7, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Lehanover <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Not the case for a turbo installation. Both the exhaust = and intake of turbo=20 systems are just long enough to mount the turbo. Once you have the = intake charge=20 well above ambient pressure, not much length tuning is = needed.
 
The ports and runner sizes in the turbo irons are = enormous.
 
In the normally aspirated Pport both intake and exhaust = lengths and=20 diameters make a big difference. Note the Mistral runner lengths. ( a = side port=20 engine). Similar lengths would put best power in a Pport at a similar = RPM. The=20 biggest effect will be muffler design. NA rotaries tune like dirt bikes. = Very=20 sensitive to exhaust length, diameter and back pressure. The Le mans = engine had=20 adjustable inlet lengths because it was an NA engine.
 
Lynn E. Hanover
 
In a message dated 10/7/2015 8:04:37 P.M. Eastern = Daylight Time,=20 flyrotary@lancaironline.net writes:

Bill,
You couldn't be more incorrect. The P = port is VERY=20 tuneable. Witness the LeMans 26B which had variable length intakes to = improve=20 driveability across the rev range. You just need to alter your = thinking a bit.=20 The rotor IS THE VALVE. When in the intake phase tuning length is very=20= effective. A turbo works similarly, but length isn't as critical. = Obstruction=20 is more important in the turbo version. If the path is clean and free = of sharp=20 corners the turbo doesn't work as hard and doesn't heat the intake = charge as=20 much. Less need for an intercooler.

Bill = Jepson

On Oct 7, 2015 4:35 PM, "Bill Bradburry" = <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

If I understand the=20 situation, and believe me, I probably don=E2=80=99t=E2=80=A6.a tuned = intake would give a=20 turbo more power at a given boost pressure than it would have = untuned at=20 that same boost pressure.  However, the benefit might not be = worth the=20 effort due to the small incremental=20 difference.

On the other hand,=20 a P-port is never closed so there would be negligible reflected = waves to use=20 for tuning.  The rotor apex seal slides by the opening of the = port and=20 slices off the fuel/air charge that is going to one rotor face and = it starts=20 to be directed to the other face.  Think of the intake air = column as a=20 sausage that is being sliced off as the apex goes by the open = port. =20 Very little reflectivity to use for tuning.

 

Or more likely, I=20 could be wrong.

 

Bill=20

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: = Wednesday, October 07, 2015 11:39=20 AM
To: Rotary motors=20 in aircraft
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: To P or not...

 

One more question = to throw into the mix.  A=20 friend is building a Cozy and has 13B short block, currently = believed to be=20 fresh though compression and leak down tests remain to be = done.  He is=20 now thinking to go turbo instead of tearing it down to go = P-port.  Is=20 it true that there is no intake runner tuning for a turbo = setup?  Yes=20 it is more complicated to go turbo (than peripheral), but there is = also the=20 advantages at altitude.

 

So the = extra question is:  P-port or=20 turbo?

 

James = R. Osborn
rxcited@gmail.com=20

 

On Oct 7, 2015, at 8:17 AM, Bill Bradburry <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

 

Christian,

 

While you are=20 doing that, you could also include some info on your pporting of = the=20 Renesis.  How did you know where to bore the holes for proper = timing=20 and how did you seal the water jacket?  I assume that you = just=20 plugged up the original ports with JB weld or=20 something?

 

Thanks,

One of the other=20 Bills

 

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: = Wednesday, October 07, 2015=20 9:04 AM
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: To P or=20 not...

 

can you give details on your=20 custom built hotdog with inox?=20 baffling.

 

Thanks

Bill=20 Schertz

 

From: Christian And=20 Tam

Sent:=20 Tuesday, October 06, 2015 11:08=20 PM

To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: To P or=20 not...

 

I would agree, yes it worked=20 out to be allot more simpler running 2 x 2" runners than playing = with 4 in=20 my opinion and  easier to manufactur=20 etc

=46rom modifying my engine=20 from a not so good 6 port intake to a simple 2 port intake I = gained a good=20 30-40 hp and 15 k top=20 end

The noise also isn't that=20 bad on my renises as I've attached a custom built hotdog = underneath with=20 inox baffling which works=20 well



Sent from my=20= iPhone


On 7=20 Oct 2015, at 1:34 pm, Mark McClure <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

Trying to ensure I have a=20 complete knowledge before I make my=20 decision,

 

The P port as shown for=20 the website is exactly what we are looking for. Straight forward = power=20 at high rpm.  The noise is a factor of energy output which = is the=20 same. 

 

If I tune a 4 port runner=20 system and get x amount of air into the engine I give y amount = of fuel=20 and I have z amount of power and engine exhaust/noise to=20 handle.

 

If I use a P port and get=20 x amount of air and give y amount of fuel it is the exact same z=20= output.  It was just easier to get x amount of air into the=20= system.

 

Or am I completely off=20 base.

 


On=20 Oct 6, 2015, at 2:17 PM, William Jepson <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

Bob,
One thing that=20 everyone should get clear is that for aircraft PPorts are = almost=20 always superior. At higher RPMs. Also Pports will idle just = fine. Good=20 balance and vibration control are the key to good idle. The = engine=20 won't make a lot of power at low rpm but that isn't a problem = for an=20 aircraft. The rotary makes a better aircraft engine than a car=20= engine!

Bill=20 Jepson

On Oct 6, 2015 9:14 AM,=20 "Rogers, Bob J." <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

You should read the=20 description of the effects of P-porting at this website.  = See=20 bottom entry.   http://www.mazdarotary.net/porting.htm  And it=20 is loud!!!  See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DJebl2pWaiWI

Bob=20 J. Rogers

-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
Sent: Tuesday,=20= October 06, 2015 10:33 AM
To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] To P or not...

I=20 understand the benefits of P porting the engine.  And I = think I=20 know the answer to my question but thought I'd verify.

Looking=20 for 180-200 hp.  I have a freshly overhauled 2004 4 port=20= 13b.
If the intake and exhaust are built right I = should have no=20 problem getting that power NA.

If = I P port the intake it will=20 be easier to make 200 or more. however it is just easier to = get air=20 into the engine, and therefore more fuel. But it is not by any = means=20 more fuel efficient?

So therefore = if I don't need the power I=20 don't need to P port.

Mark


--
Homepage:  = http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= br class=3D"">


--
Homepage: =20 http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= u class=3D"">

 

= --Apple-Mail=_6A295C60-0A47-49F3-8F20-EBF76D76649D--