Message

Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:59:51 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net ([207.217.120.54] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2941246 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:35:16 -0500 Received: from user-33qt54l.dialup.mindspring.com ([199.174.148.149] helo=Carol) by conure.mail.pas.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1Aj998-0004OZ-00 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 19:35:14 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: <002701c3dfcf$8cee7d10$0000a398@Carol> From: "sqpilot@earthlink" X-Original-To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake question X-Original-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 21:34:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C3DF9D.4135F2E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C3DF9D.4135F2E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 2:36 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake question Actually, Rusty, the secondary ports on the NA block and the turbo = block are different. In fact, when I saw the amount of gasket it = reminded me of the amount I see when I try a NA manifold against a turbo = block. Secondaries on the NA and Turbo are different.=20 Ed Anderson=20 I called up Atkins, and they said they never made a straight manifold = for the turbo block, though they did make one for an "early 4 port". I = think they're referring to something like the 84-85 13B in the RX-7, but = I'm not sure. They also made a straight manifold for the 6 port, which = must be what I have. Silly me, I actually expected the 6 port manifold = to have 6 ports, like the engine does. =20 Next time I go to the hanger, you can bet that I'll be measuring some = manifolds. I'm now wondering if the one I was using previously had the = proper size ports. Ignorance is bliss :-) I'm still not sure what I'll do. The manifold would certainly run = like this, but it would never be right. At the moment, I'd like to get = done with this &*#$@ fiberglass oil cooler scoop. At least it's far = better looking than BUC. Cheers, Rusty (who as you know, hates fiberglass) =20 Hi, Rusty....after our phone conversation regarding the intake = manifolds, I just had to have a look. I just now removed my latest = manifold, and you are correct. The secondary intake holes measure 1 3/4 = incheson my latest manifold. On Dave Atkins' wrap-around manifold, they = measure 2 1/2 inches. On the engine, the ports measure only 1 3/4 = inches. =20 When I bought the 3 thousand dollar EFI and fuel system from = him, he said that it would fit a 1989 turbo engine fine, since it is a = 4-port. I just assumed that "fit fine" meant fit fine. Glad I ended up = with the latest manifold. Everything appears to be the right size. = Sorry if I mislead you....Unfortunately, I was going from Dave Atkin's = statements, and worse of all, from memory. I'm learning that I should = never do that. (working from memory). I had a nice memory course on = cassette, but I forgot where I put it. Thanks for pointing out the = differences in the ports. Paul Conner ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C3DF9D.4135F2E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft

Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 = 2:36=20 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake = question

Actually, Rusty, the secondary = ports on the=20 NA block and the turbo block are different. In fact, when I saw = the=20 amount of gasket it reminded me of the amount I see when I try a NA = manifold=20 against a turbo block. Secondaries on the NA and Turbo are=20 different.

Ed Anderson

I called up Atkins, and they said they never = made=20 a straight manifold for the turbo block, though they did = make one=20 for an "early 4 port". I think they're referring to something = like the=20 84-85 13B in the RX-7, but I'm not sure. They also made a = straight=20 manifold for the 6 port, which must be what I have. Silly = me, I=20 actually expected the 6 port manifold to have 6 ports, like the = engine=20 does.

Next time I go to the hanger, you can bet = that I'll be=20 measuring some manifolds. I'm now wondering if the one I was = using=20 previously had the proper size ports. Ignorance is bliss=20 :-)

I'm still=20 not sure what I'll do. The manifold would certainly = run like=20 this, but it would never be right. At the moment, I'd like to = get done=20 with this &*#$@ fiberglass oil cooler scoop. At least it's = far=20 better looking than BUC.

Cheers,

Rusty (who=20 as you know, hates fiberglass) =

Hi, = Rusty....after our=20 phone conversation regarding the intake manifolds, I just had to have = a look.=20 I just now removed my latest manifold, and you are correct. The = secondary=20 intake holes measure 1 3/4 incheson my latest manifold. On Dave = Atkins'=20 wrap-around manifold, they measure 2 1/2 inches. On the engine, = the=20 ports measure only 1 3/4 inches.

When I bought the 3 = thousand=20 dollar EFI and fuel system from him, he said that it would fit a 1989 = turbo=20 engine fine, since it is a 4-port. I just assumed that "fit fine" = meant fit=20 fine. Glad I ended up with the latest manifold. Everything = appears to be=20 the right size. Sorry if I mislead you....Unfortunately, I was = going=20 from Dave Atkin's statements, and worse of all, from memory. I'm = learning that I should never do that. (working from memory). I = had a=20 nice memory course on cassette, but I forgot where I put it. = Thanks for=20 pointing out the differences in the ports. Paul Conner

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C3DF9D.4135F2E0--