Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <4E401655.5040902@att.net>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:01:09 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net>
Reply-To: echristley@att.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: CG Products Intake Manifold
References: <list-5083847@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5083847@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ben Schneider wrote:
> That is exactly what their intentions are. Crissi mentioned a couple of 
> ideas they had about upper manifolds. One of which is a plenum on the 
> end of those runners, coupled on with hose sections as mine is, then one 
> large tube feeding the plenum up through the center (i.e. the large tube 
> would lay parallel to the runners shown and couple to the manifold in 
> the space between runners 2 and 3). The other would continue on across 
> the engine to the other side, still another option would be to feed it 
> from the front or rear based on cowl clearance and airframe.
> 
> Ben

That last option has some hidden snakes lying in wait.  I did basically that, except with a composite plenum.  The EGT 
of the rotor feeding from the rear of the plenum was about 300* higher than the one feeding from the front.  I theorize 
that the air rushing past the front runners were creating a partial, albeit localized, vacuum.

Heh, Cozy Girls, if you're monitoring the list, I can send you pictures of what I know WON'T work, and a picture or two 
of what made things better.