Yes and No, Finn

My principal objective was simply to get the mechanics of the variable
intake length down and working which I did.  I made a number of compromises
including using my first home made lower intake manifold (for convince - had
it laying around) which I knew had poor flow characteristics (one of the
reasons I took it off in the first place).  Then to make it even easier I
used an old Webber upper manifold which required I merge the primary and
secondary intakes.  But, I think where I really went wrong was having a
tight  180 deg bend in the intake right where the throttle body was
positioned.  The pulses do not like sharp turns.

In any case, I did vary the manifold in flight but to my surprise it did not
cause the rpm to vary even 50 rpm - I would have expected some change even
if due to "organ pipe" tuning effect. But, Nada!  which was a little strange
in itself.

I then got involved in converting to the 2.85 and monster prop, so I took
the variable intake off and reverted to the manifold that had proven to give
me the best power.  However, I will revisit the variable intake - but this
time I will not merge the primary and secondary nor require the FAW to
follow a tight 180 deg turn.  The mechanics of running 4 tubes up and down
is a bit more involved that just running two - so need to do some head
scratching to come up with a lightweight and reliable mechanism.

Just too many projects and not enough time/$$ to do them all {:>)

Ed Anderson


----- Original Message -----
From: "Finn Lassen" <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 11:55 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Muffler Design


> Hi Ed,
>
> I just realized that you started a new project. Did you ever finish the
> variable intake length testing?
>
> Finn
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>