X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-d21.mx.aol.com ([205.188.144.207] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1001680 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:24:35 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.144.207; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d21.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r1.7.) id q.9f.61113037 (16086) for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:23:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mblk-d47 (mblk-d47.mblk.aol.com [205.188.212.231]) by air-id10.mx.aol.com (v106.2) with ESMTP id MAILINID103-3ed642af048d3be; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:23:42 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:23:41 -0400 Message-Id: <8C73F14901C231A-B4C-16FC4@mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com> From: wrjjrs@aol.com References: Received: from 66.127.99.234 by mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com (205.188.212.231) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 12:23:41 -0400 X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-MB-Message-Type: User In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 1.1.0.12781 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Manifold Thoughts - 6 to 4 ports Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MailBlocks_8C73F14901C231A_B4C_15CA0_mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net X-AOL-IP: 205.188.212.231 ----------MailBlocks_8C73F14901C231A_B4C_15CA0_mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm already thinking of a PP engine. By the looks of it from PL's tests it makes about the same power as turbo, without the weight and more simple? I don't know how it will compare at altitude? Buly Buly, The PP will lose power at altitude like any normally aspirated engine. If you are looking for near sea-level power at altitude you need a turbo. If you are looking for good takeoff performance a NA engine will be fine. The PP engine IS much simpler than a turbo engine. There is a lot fewer parts that are failure prone starting with the turbo itself. Bill Jepson ----------MailBlocks_8C73F14901C231A_B4C_15CA0_mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

I'm already thinking of a PP engine. By the looks of it from PL's tests it
makes about the same power as turbo, without the weight and more simple?
I don't know how it will compare at altitude?
Buly

Buly,

The PP will lose power at altitude like any normally aspirated engine. If you are looking for near sea-level power at altitude you need a turbo. If you are looking for good takeoff performance a NA engine will be fine. The PP engine IS much simpler than a turbo engine. There is a lot fewer parts that are failure prone starting with the turbo itself.

Bill Jepson

----------MailBlocks_8C73F14901C231A_B4C_15CA0_mblk-d47.sysops.aol.com--