X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm12-vm0.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.236.11] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5336294 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 00:55:00 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.236.11; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net Received: from [66.94.237.196] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2012 05:54:25 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.111] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2012 05:54:25 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Jan 2012 05:54:25 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 619483.51390.bm@omp1016.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 37689 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2012 05:54:25 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bellsouth.net; s=s1024; t=1325656465; bh=tQGjZN7G/Zu3GnqQxvpRyFCuksQyvsJgtnab2I4C9l0=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=ywrefuEU0eZIaXXYYxfa3ysSx4CBL4JnJ98UOJCXpQB6pGySVbPlM4Kik3SQ/RkcxlxWFpjYwDU3FNb4mpWuQ+HtO1P3ozJOsmlteva3hNvvKZuZaa4OJnAHtgnxoU/40lXEPu8wIKGOIDvilu6mQ8QXKkRhhog0FzknXZqbfaI= X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: QSyDQOYVM1k2J1FNKGFxs_v4w6aTiqYxsFCoesMg0BWLPv0 85epWbyppfSwksJPPjxy0LUXQBdo7eYCKhHkeN6de5VSP6C.ILM1cxjM1eos aEkHHDa6qPTIzmmjIguGL2ysQ6rQTNhvm3DXmZgXw9QztwqZMlbwHan6N1L9 v_ixOUzWi0KqQADjnv_Vx0n6zp7PnIK0mlj_cTnknYT2Fti3iAcbH8x1epmp YXW5hSEN5fc1C0TSIPH5MnqB.foF_Sql6sh3W9UqOMUaRo7dXcoJNHduRXQp .w9we54VOx4ocbvKoJrADPGOVuWvHdgu1a.1DZHeK5UzYSZTB9OZuw1EHT95 HBI72UfCtveUlp66TyDiOqD5b4nHw1GcasbOWTGl8yKUP8LMh5miMsk4r5y1 bHOq_JRIePZQETcuowxnb__PMJHRFo4Sd9G8FfkR_ixvx.c3L5AFeGWNRzGN Yw4l9GUkymqTc9MnCmWU1pvLJ35UtA67eUIgxbgN23BJzo89W3t06 X-Yahoo-SMTP: uXJ_6LOswBCr8InijhYErvjWlJuRkoKPGNeiuu7PA.5wcGoy Received: from [192.168.10.30] (ceengland@98.95.176.144 with plain) by smtp107.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 03 Jan 2012 21:54:25 -0800 PST Message-ID: <4F03E990.5080001@bellsouth.net> Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 23:54:24 -0600 From: Charlie England User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Renesis intake port layout needed References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080603070501060408020608" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------080603070501060408020608 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Waaaay too much money for me, & won't work with my motor mount, anyway. I believe that most are over thinking (and overdoing). I'm looking at the best performing Renesis that's flying. On 01/03/2012 09:27 PM, Thomas Mann wrote: > Yes, the intake is obviously a bigger deal than the exhaust. > > From my perspective I would hold out for the CG Parts intake. It's the > best approach I have seen to date. > The flange is such a small part of the intake. I'm not going to even > consider fabricating the intake. > > > > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Charlie England > > wrote: > > On 01/03/2012 07:15 PM, Thomas Mann wrote: >> Flanges for the rotary are too cheap to justify doing them yourself. >> I mean really? How much will you save trying to fabricate a $30 >> flange? >> >> http://www.mazdatrix.com/E3.HTM > I'd agree, if there was an intake flange anywhere on that exhaust > flange page. :-) > > --------------080603070501060408020608 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Waaaay too much money for me, & won't work with my motor mount, anyway.

I believe that most are over thinking (and overdoing). I'm looking at the best performing Renesis that's flying.

On 01/03/2012 09:27 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:
Yes, the intake is obviously a bigger deal than the exhaust.

From my perspective I would hold out for the CG Parts intake. It's the best approach I have seen to date.
The flange is such a small part of the intake. I'm not going to even consider fabricating the intake.



On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
On 01/03/2012 07:15 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:
Flanges for the rotary are too cheap to justify doing them yourself.
I mean really? How much will you save trying to fabricate a $30 flange?

I'd agree, if there was an intake flange anywhere on that exhaust flange page. :-)


--------------080603070501060408020608--