X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.186] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.3) with ESMTPS id 970967 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2005 17:52:47 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.186; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d220-236-25-37.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.25.37]) by mail05.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j4VLpxXM012729 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:52:00 +1000 Message-ID: <007601c5662b$aa9474d0$2519ecdc@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RX-8 6 port Intake - Like, complicated.... Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 07:56:57 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0073_01C5667F.7BF59920" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C5667F.7BF59920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I must say I agree with Tracy on this, after looking at both, the only = difference been power seems ( to me) to be as a result of the complex = porting. As this will be scrapped for a 'home-brew' port arrangement, I = believe the 4 port will be a lot easier to work on - for the average = builder! An added advantage is the 4 ports are for automatics ( mostly , I = believe) and have the flexplate and counterweight included. George (down under) Yep, that was a big factor in why I chose the 4 port "low power" = engine. Much simpler manifold requirements. Tracy ----- Original Message -----=20 From: BillDube@killacycle.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 7:38 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] RX-8 6 port Intake - Like, complicated.... I have been studying the intake system on my 6 port RX-8. It is MUCH = more=20 complicated than I anticipated. Not only does it have an Auxiliary = Port=20 Valve (APV), it has a Secondary Shutter Valve (SSV) and a Variable = Dynamic=20 Effect (VDI) valve. >snip< ------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C5667F.7BF59920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I must say I agree with Tracy on this, = after=20 looking at both, the only difference been power seems ( to me) to be = as a=20 result of the complex porting. As this will be scrapped for = a=20 'home-brew' port arrangement, I believe the 4 port will be a lot = easier to=20 work on - for the average builder!
An added advantage is the 4 ports are = for=20 automatics ( mostly , I believe) and have the flexplate and = counterweight=20 included.
George (down under)
 
Yep, that was a big factor in why I chose the 4 port "low power"=20 engine.  Much simpler manifold requirements.
 
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: BillDube@killacycle.com =
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 = 7:38=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] RX-8 6 = port Intake=20 - Like, complicated....

I have been studying the intake system on my 6 port RX-8. It is = MUCH=20 more
complicated than I anticipated. Not only does it have an = Auxiliary=20 Port
Valve (APV), it has a Secondary Shutter Valve (SSV) and a = Variable=20 Dynamic
Effect (VDI) valve.
=
>snip<

------=_NextPart_000_0073_01C5667F.7BF59920--