Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.124; envelope-from=clouduster@austin.rr.com
Message-ID: <495EED9F.6040208@austin.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 22:46:23 -0600
From: Dennis Haverlah <clouduster@austin.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Activity......
References: <list-3408380@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3408380@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tracy:

Could you give me a little more detail on the manifold you used that 
gave the best performance.  (1).  Was it designed so that a pulse 
exiting rotor #1's runner would flow into the open end of rotor #2's 
runner or did it use a large plenum similar to what you have on the 
Renesis in the RV-4.  and (2) Was the manifold good for takeoff power vs 
high speed power or overall good at both.
 

Thanks,

Dennis H.

Tracy Crook wrote:

> Yep, you're right Dennis.  I had mentally reversed the order of the 
> manifold valves and my measurements were between the face of the block 
> and entry to the dynamic chamber instead of port opening to center of 
> chamber.
>    My best overall manifold that I used on my 2nd gen engine measured 
> about 20 inches using your points of reference.  Also keep in mind 
> that the 4 port Renesis was tuned for a power peak of about 7400, not 
> 8500 like the 6 port version. 
>
> Tracy Crook
>
>