Group,
    looking to fit a prop to my P ported renesis and need to
     know what actual HP it will generate and not an enthusiastic
  guess.   Would I be safe in aiming for 230 HP?  Apparently if the
  prop is  too big   nothing works, so smaller seems to be the aim.
  Any suggestions ??  It   will be a fixed catto prop, and as usual
  craig Catto has been caught   many times before with HP in engines.
  Actual HP not guesses required.   Neil.

   What gear ratio is your gear box?
    If it is a 2.85 the prop will turn about 2600 and the engine
   will turn about 7400 and make 250 HP plus or minus 10.
    We need to get a group buy together and find somebody to make ground
   adjustable blades for a Warp Drive type hub. That way you can
  fine tune the pitch without buying a new prop.
    Paul Lamar

    Aren't there other factors that have to be right to get 250hp?
Intake, exhaust..  Can't go too big on the pipes, smooth
 transitions, no big  restrictions, etc.  A bit of time on a dyno
with the complete  firewall setup  from the airplane might be money
well spent.  Compared to swapping  props.    As for the prop, if
pitch or diameter are wrong, it's a bigger  project to  add material
to the prop than it is to take it away. At least for wood  props, it
can be relatively easy to cut the diameter down, or even  reduce
 the pitch to some extent.  Catto props are composite covered, so
it's  probably a bigger hassle to modify than for a straight wood prop.
    How about buy or borrow another prop to try before committing to
  one in  particular.  If you could find a fixed pitch prop from a
  local Pitts  or RV  or Skybolt, you'll have something to use for a
  baseline. Many/most  of those  airplanes have 180hp engines.
    Another thought is to do prototyping with a wood prop of your own
  construction.  If you have gone to the effort of building a whole
  airplane,
  including the powerplant, building a prop may turn out to be that
  difficult,
  by comparison.  There were ads in Sport Aviation for doing this.
  And  online.
    Matt-

   I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) that Neil is doing the p-port
  at least as well as I am doing it and he is using a 2.85:1 gear
box.   IMHO the best thing about a welded p-port it is hard to screw
up  but  possible.

  I have taken the position that only a ground adjustable prop is worth
  fooling with provided you are not using a constant speed or in the
  air  adjustable. I have come to the conclusion there are too many
variations in aircraft drag to recommend anything else. The Warp
Drive type adjustable  pitch hub is becoming an industry standard
as even Sensenich is  supporting it.  Unfortunately Sensenich does
 not yet have a blade suitable for our use.

  Randy told me today that Warp drive now has three different all
  carbon  blade designs. Ultra Light, LSA and high power. One of them
  is called Constant Speed Blade Platform. http://www.warpdriveprops.com/
   However I am not yet convinced the WD blade plan-form and twist is
  yet  optimum for  the lower drag AC designs. That I why I would
like  to  see some  other companies get in the biz of ground adjustable.
   The high power to weight ratio of rotary powered aircraft and the
  excess length
  of most runways is why I think constant speed props are not worth
  the money.
  Set the pitch for best cruise and let the take off performance be
  what it is.
  We are mostly not building C182's here or cargo aircraft.

  IMHO pure wood props will always have less performance than a
  metal prop  due to the lower modulus of elasticity wood. The high
  modulus of  elasticity in  carbon has yet to be taken advantage of.
  In other word when the tips  are in  the transonic range you want a
  thin blade as the drag of the tips  becomes  a significant consumer
  of HP. Therefor a stiff thin tip is an  advantage.
   Paul Lamar

  I agree with Matt.  You should be much more conservative with your
  HP  estimate for the prop maker.  Powersport was only claiming 210
  h.p. and  I think that is more in line with what the average p-port
  builder can  expect.  In aircraft we are seldom able to achieve the
  same optimum  numbers produced in dynos and on cars.  Largely that
  is due to our fixed  gear ratio an also by imperfections in the
  design and fabrication of the  intake and exhaust manifolds, like
  Matt mentioned.
   With reguard to props, I am still mostly an advocate of fixed
pitch  composite props for our application.  The MT electric c/s is heavy

  (like  a lot), expensive (like a REAL LOT), and comes with an RPM limitation
  that you would not want to have to live with (can't remember the number
  off the top of my head).  The IVO is, well, the IVO... search the
  archives.  And Whirlwind, as of the time I called them asking
  about a  prop 7 years ago, would not make one that turned in
reverse  direction or  with custom blades. (even in ground
adjustable form).

Warp Drive and  Whirlwind both do not make hubs and blades big
  enough for our application.
   So that pretty much leaves fixed pitch.  I disagree that metal
  props are  always faster.  If this is true, then why are all the
top  finishers,  indeed most of the fields in the Formula One,
Biplane,  and Sport classes  at Reno using composite props?  Kevin Eldridge
  was the odds on favorite  to win the 2010 Super Sport class in his
  Nemisis NXT when an oil line  blew and overspead his prop causing
it  to quickly depart the aircraft.  He credits the fact that he had
a  composite prop and not a metal prop  with saving his life because
a  metal prop would have taken the engine  with it.  But that's not why
  he was using a composite prop, he was using  one because it was
fast  - and he was doing more than 400mph.

   If there is a difference in modulus that disadvantages composite
  props,  then it is so small that it does not overcome the other
  advantages that  composite props offer in terms of efficiency.  Not
  to mention ease and  cost of production

   Although the Catto has an epoxy layer, it is not difficult to re-pitch.
  Craig took a few degrees out of mine in just a couple of days for
  minimal cost.  Matt is right, Craig said that it is easier to
  remove  pitch than to add it.  But still, go with about 210 hp.
when  having your  prop made.  Getting a loaner would be nice if you
can  find one.Or,  maybe start with a used prop that you can re-sell
for  about the same  price that you paid once you get some
performance numbers.
  --
  David Leonard
   Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
  http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
  http://RotaryRoster.net

   A P-port intake manifold is one simple bent tube
  so it is entirely smooth from intake to port. There are
  no parts that mismatch. That is one reason I advocate  p-ports.
  The manifold is easy to make and hard to screw up.
   The design is an exact copy (port timing and tubes size) of the P-
port  Mazda used to win Le Mans. That engine had 620 HP  at 7500
RPM. That is 155 HP per rotor or 310 HP for a 2 rotor  so if
anything I am being widely conservative by claiming  only 250 HP at
7500 RPM.

   The Power Sport p-ports had smaller diameter tubes and the power
  was 215 HP (and not 210 HP) at only 6000 RPM and not at 7500 RPM.
  Power is torque times RPM and torque in a p-port rotary is nearly
  constant.

   Mazda 2 rotor p-port road racing engines have been generating over
  300 HP since the late 1970's.
   The vast majority of people going for p-ports are using a
  2.85:1 gear box that rotates in the right direction.
   The modulus of elasticity of carbon is 3 times higher than
aluminum  so in theory it should be better.

   What I said about that was:
  "IMHO pure wood props will always have less performance than a
  metal prop  due to the lower modulus of elasticity wood. The high
  modulus of  elasticity in  carbon has yet to be taken advantage of."

   Perhaps I was wrong about carbon not yet being taken advantage of.

  I said nothing about the modulus of elasticity of composites being
  lower  that metal. Tracy Saylor, who demonstrated the fastest RV6
in  the world  at 238 MPH in the Sun 100 race told me his CS metal prop
  was 15 to 20 MPH faster  than a so called composite CS MT prop
which  he tried and which is mostly wood.

   Despite running MT props the twin Power Sport RV8's were faster
  than  a 200 HP  IO-360 owned by Van's at a comprehensive
performance  test done back  in 2007.  See the last attachment. The
fuel burn  test was rigged showing  the Power Sport engines to burn
far more  fuel than they really do.

   I have an RX8 P-port sitting in my hangar ready to go into Mike
  Wills RV4.  I will be building a new gear box that rotates in the
  right direction  for it.
   We are now leaving Sunday to pick it up.

  Do you want to race? :) You should beat me hands down with a turbo
  :)
   Paul Lamar

  I agree with Paul that p-ports should be easy to make power with.
It's mechanically and aerodynamically simple and direct.

  However, some aspect of the induction system might still have a
  problem that could limit horsepower. The plenum, throttle body
  (carb?) filter setup, air inlet, etc might not be packaged properly
  to make horsepower.  Will a fuel cloud blow out of the inlet when
on  tap, causing a massive (or subtle) lean loss of power?

  That said, I think you won't know how well it's going to do until
  you run it with all of the stuff installed.

  I hope Neil's engine makes his target horsepower, be it 230, 250,
 or  whatever. But I think there are too many variables.

  Is Neil's engine installation a copy of another, known performance,
   setup?  How does it differ?

  And then, what about the exhaust?

  This is the nature of experimental engines.

  I can't recall the details of Neil's airplane. No offense to him,
   but, I've seen people do all sorts of funny stuff on an
  experimental aircraft (or car) engine and then wonder why it has
  serious performance problems.

  I am confident that the engine can make 230-250 hp in the rpm range
  being discussed. But, if there's something amiss in the overall
  system, will Neil spend the time tweaking it to match the prop? Or
  will he change to a prop that works with the horsepower being produced?

  As for props..

  Fixed pitch metal props are not allowed at Reno..  In early days,
   racers were using cut down and grossly repitched (forcibly
twisted)  factory metal props, and then turned them to a much higher
rpm than  they were engineered for. They apparently had some spectacular
  failures. Fatalities, I believe.  I bet the f1's and biplanes would
  use metal props if a metal prop could be proven safe enough under
  race conditions.

  Not all composite prop blades are created equal. I believe the MT
  props are not optimized for high cruise speed.  The thicker blade
  tips might have been designed for a long service life while using
  relatively ordinary materials.  It seems MT might be due for some redesign.

  Hartzell has been making some sophisticated swept-tip composite
  props the last few years. Side by side tests show them to be as
fast,   if not faster than the comparable metal prop.

  Some prop rpm restrictions aren't about the prop so much as being
  driven by a 4 cylinder direct drive engine with torsionally active
  crankshaft. A gear-reduced rotary may have significantly different
  torsional behavior, and may be subject to different rpm limitations
  (don't idle too low)..

  Composite and wood props are lighter, which can help torsional problems.

  Regards,

  Matt-

  We ran it and flew it Matt. Mustang II. No fuel cloud with fuel injection.
  The cloud is caused by the reverse flow through a carb. The
venturi cannot  tell the difference so fuel comes out regardless of
the flow direction.

  Mark Steitle is flying one as FI p-port 3 rotor.

  Paul Lamar

Paul,

Do p-port engines have much of a tendency for fuel stand-off? It is
a bit of a problem in piston engines especially with IR type intakes
because of the pressure pulse reversal when the intake valve closes.
A p-port does not really close the intake flow and stop it
momentarily. It gets redirected to the next side of the rotor as the
apex seal passes the port. Your charts of intake pressure show like
a sine wave. Intake tuning does affect this but the amount of
pressure difference should not cause a stand off problem.

Dale Davies

There is no stand off with Tracy's efi. IMHO it is a carburetor phenomena.
The venturi in the carb cannot tell whether the air is flowing in or
out so to feeds fuel into the air stream regardless.

Paul Lamar

I don't think a carburetor p-port will have an issue with fuel stand off for
the reasons I stated. Automotive V8s will have it even with a single
carburetor. Even note the brown stain on the air filter lid? If there is a
tendency to have stand off with a carb, it will do it with EFI also due to the
pressure pulse. Throttle body EFI more prone to show this phenomena. Port EFI
masks it as the runner length does not allow the fuel cloud to escape before
being injested again. A port EFI with the injectors at the open inlet end
could display the fuel stand off. A side port engine should have a slightly
greater chance of it, due to the longer port closing between intake events.

Dale Davies

The carb p-port standoff is spectacular. This is a Weber carb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKJ00JsnS8A

Paul Lamar