Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 16:32:45 -0800
From: Paul <rotaryeng@earthlink.net>
To: z <rotaryeng@earthlink.net>
Subject: Dynamic Chamber Intake manifolds

Paul Yaw wrote:

There are many variables that affect horsepower output.  Comparing
horsepower outputs based on inlet cross sectional area is crazy.  The 

Le

Mans engine did in fact make more horsepower at 6000, even with a 

bigger

pipe, but what does that mean?  Nothing unless both engines had the 

same

flow potential, exhaust duration, intake duration, overlap, ignition
system, exhaust system, blah, blah, blah.  As I understand it, Everett
was building his own peripheral ports.  These could have been very
different from the factory pieces, and if he was targeting peak power 

at

6000 rpm they should have been quite different.  Peripheral, and 

bridge

ported engines are extremely sensitive to intake and exhaust tuning, 

and

quite often minor changes make big changes in output.  As for inlet
cross sectional area, two 1.5" pipes per rotor is way to much.
Comparing peripheral port engines to 6-port engines is like comparing 

a

stock Chevy small block to a Winston Cup engine.  BIG differences
between the two.  If you guys really want to make some power, take
Everett's approach, and build a peripheral port engine.  You could
probably accomplish similar results with a bridge ported engine, but 

it

would require a lot more work, and you will be left wondering when the
bridge is going to break and fall into the engine.

Paul Yaw

OK let's just copy the Le Mans engine exactly. I think a lot of
our readers would like 240 HP at 6000 RPM. One of the things Everett
did was not the best. He used a butterfly valve in the intake track
that helped the idle but reduced the air flow at WOT.

Paul Lamar

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com