X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTP id 1025874 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:23:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.71; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm66aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050629142303.TRCF2460.imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm66aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:23:03 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm66aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050629142303.ZTTI5308.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:23:03 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: P Ports working on dyno Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:23:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c57cb6$0fc3a7e0$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C57C8C.26ED9FE0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C57C8C.26ED9FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So the only issue was the remote injectors which has turned out = apparently to be a non issue as well. They work fine although no mention was made = about throttle response. =20 =20 If you don't know about the throttle response, then you don't know if = it's working, since that was the only problem I had with remotely mounted injectors. The engine ran fine otherwise. =20 =20 The exhaust system as seen in photos is part of the dyno set up and I = don't have the details. It does suppress the sound to tolerable levels. Today = or tomorrow they will be testing the cool tube exhaust system that I built. = It may cost some hp. we shall see. =20 =20 I've been interested in the muffler design as well, so this will be interesting. Normally, you would expect to lose more power on a PP with = a muffler, than you would on a normal ported engine. Since the PP in = question is smaller, and has less radical timing, all bets may be off on that behavior. =20 I don't think you have any real numbers to suggest the p port will have = poor milage if you take into consideration the power being produced. If you = want to burn less fuel, throttle back to 200 hp. =20 =20 Absolutely right. I'm only going by what I've been told, and trust to = be true. Again, that's for typical PP engines, which is not what you guys = are making. Unfortunately, none of us will know about the fuel efficiency = until someone gets one flying. =20 Back to the remote fuel injectors. Cool side injection is certainly = possible in p ports and in my opinion should be a design goal for safety reasons. = It may not work in side ports due to lower velocities in the runners. =20 =20 I don't understand why you think the velocity is guaranteed to be higher = in the PP runner? That all depends on the size of the runners, and ports. = You can't just make a blanket statement like that.=20 =20 I have no question the remote injectors will work, but I do believe = throttle response will suffer. It might be well within your acceptable limits though. =20 Time to give Paul Lamar credit for his huge effort in developing the p = port to this stage. He has been very open about reporting difficulties along = the way. Jerry=20 =20 Who actually built this engine, and when will it make it into a plane? =20 =20 As I've stated before, I want to believe. I've got everything I need to = do a PP for the RV-3, and it will either be that, or a turbo. Both have = their good and bad points. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (mystery packages on the way from Tracy???)=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C57C8C.26ED9FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
So the only issue was the remote injectors which has turned out = apparently=20 to be a non issue as well. They work fine although no mention was made = about=20 throttle response.  
 
If you=20 don't know about the throttle response, then you don't know if it's = working, since that was the only problem I had with remotely = mounted=20 injectors.  The engine ran fine otherwise.    
 
 The exhaust system as = seen in=20 photos is part of the dyno set up and I don't have the details. It does = suppress=20 the sound to tolerable levels. Today or tomorrow they will be testing = the cool=20 tube exhaust system that I built. It may cost some hp. we shall = see.  
 
I've been=20 interested in the muffler design as well, so this will be = interesting. =20 Normally, you would expect to lose more power on a PP with a = muffler,=20 than you would on a normal ported engine.  Since the PP = in question is=20 smaller, and has less radical timing, all bets may be off on that=20 behavior.   

I don't think you have any = real=20 numbers to suggest the p port will have poor milage if you take into=20 consideration the power being produced. If you want to burn less fuel, = throttle=20 back to 200 hp.  
 
Absolutely=20 right.  I'm only going by what I've been told, and trust to be = true.  Again, that's for typical PP engines, which is not what you = guys are=20 making.  Unfortunately, none of us will know about the fuel = efficiency=20 until someone gets one flying.   

Back to = the=20 remote fuel injectors. Cool side injection is certainly possible in p = ports and=20 in my opinion should be a design goal for safety reasons. It may not = work in=20 side ports due to lower velocities in the runners.  
 
I don't=20 understand why you think the velocity is guaranteed to be higher in the = PP=20 runner?  That all depends on the size of the runners, and = ports.  You=20 can't just make a blanket statement like that. 
 
I have no=20 question the remote injectors will work, but I do believe throttle = response will=20 suffer.  It might be well within your acceptable limits = though. =20   

Time to give Paul Lamar credit for his = huge=20 effort in developing the p port to this stage. He has been very open = about=20 reporting difficulties along the way. Jerry 
 
Who actually=20 built this engine, and when will it make it into a=20 plane?  
 
As I've=20 stated before, I want to believe.  I've got everything I need to do = a PP=20 for the RV-3, and it will either be that, or a turbo.  Both = have their=20 good and bad points.  
 
Cheers,
Rusty=20 (mystery packages on the way from = Tracy???) 



------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C57C8C.26ED9FE0--