Hi Ken,

don't give up on the PP configuration yet. If I get with the single rotor
what it looks like now, 300hp for the NA 13B at 7500rpm is a possibility,
and that with a 50lb lighter engine. If the RENESIS is really much better in
other regards than HP, it can be converted to PP and 50lb less. PP charge
efficiency at high RPM is always better then side ports, no matter what.
Sound crazy, doesn't it!

Richard Sohn
N-2071U
unicorn@gdsys.net
www.gdsys.net/WWWmembers/unicorn/


----- Original Message -----
From: <lm4@juno.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 8:10 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: C mounting on a B plate?? Renesis & RD-1C
drivetesting


> John Rontz
>
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 02:14:57 +0000 kenpowell@comcast.net writes:
> > I hate to tell you guys 'I told you so, but...'.  An't the 2.85 ratio
> > great!  Congradulations Tracy on your results so far.  I have also
> > been preaching the benefits of peripheral ports, but to no avail.
> > And since it doesn't look like I am going to get an airplane built
> > anytime soon, it looks like someone else will have to prove the
> > superiority of the PP.  Of course, the Renesis will probably prove
> > superior to the PP so this may not matter.  Tracy, BTW my prop
> > program (written by the guy that did the RV-9 wing, I can't seem to
> > remember his name at the moment) calculated a 91 pitch for a 72"
> > diameter. Close to yours but I realize that there alot of other
> > factors as well.
> >
> > Ken Powell
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>