My point on the Lemans engine was if you run it at a constant RPM
the variable runner length would be fixed at that RPM. That means you
could replace the runner with one of fixed length, the same diameter
and get the same HP results. The fact it had variable runner lengths
then becomes irrelevant. That also means we are using runners that are too
small in diameter as the Lemans engine developed 120 HP per rotor or 240

HP

for a two rotor version at only 6000 RPM. The Power Sport engine
with the similar peripheral porting is only generating 210 HP
at 6000 RPM with somewhat smaller diameter (too small) runners.
Do you agree? Does anybody disagree?

Paul Lamar

Monty Roberts wrote:

I agree with you Paul. You absolutely don't need all this variable intake
stuff on an aircraft engine. I would like to build an engine that would
produce 240 hp at 6000 rpm. My question is what happens if you put a turbo
on an engine configured as such {8>O.

Monty

I think it probably becomes a bit more efficient due to lower pumping
loses compared to say a stock turbo side port engine. Jim Mederer essentially 
has done that with the 900 HP turbo three rotor shown here on the dyno.
 
Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org