X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.164] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTPS id 1009783 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:24:13 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.133.164; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d220-236-0-190.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.0.190]) by mail23.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j5M7NILP015891 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:23:23 +1000 Message-ID: <002001c576fb$4a2e8a00$be00ecdc@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Single PP HP? Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:23:27 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C5774F.19E6E050" 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_001B_01C5774F.19E6E050 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message You tend to forget some very important points Rusty, please remember = I'm working on aluminium end/side housings ( without ports) - so too is = Richard Sohn. It is much easier and cheaper to do it that way. So = naturally we need a port somewhere.=20 Right you are. I did sort of gloss over that part. I think I = understand now. You're doing the PP because it's easier, not because = it's better. Wait, maybe that didn't come out quite right :-) =20 Cheers, Rusty (stirrin' up trouble) Rusty, I think if I could get away from using PP ( easily) I would do that - = your half way right, as who needs to contend with the possibility of = troublesome idling. On the other hand, the port does breath better, it will most = definitely give more power, especially to the single rotor application = and the plumbing is a 1:1. To say that PP is better is wrong, but it may be better for some = applications and indeed worse for others. For instance I don't = understand PP for road use, just crazy! George ( down under) ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C5774F.19E6E050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
You=20 tend to forget some very important points Rusty, please remember I'm = working=20 on aluminium end/side housings ( without ports) - so too is = Richard Sohn.=20 It is much easier and cheaper to do it that way. So naturally we need = a port=20 somewhere. 
 
Right you are.  = I did=20 sort of gloss over that part.  I think I understand = now. =20 You're doing the PP because it's easier, not because it's = better.  =20 Wait, maybe that didn't come out quite right=20  :-)  
 
Cheers,
Rusty (stirrin' up=20 trouble)
 
Rusty,
I think if I could get away from using PP ( = easily) I=20 would do that - your half way right, as who needs to contend with the=20 possibility of troublesome idling.
On the other hand, the port does breath = better, it=20 will most definitely give more power, especially to the single=20 rotor application and the plumbing is a = 1:1.
 
To say that PP is better is wrong, but it = may be=20 better for some applications and indeed worse for others. For instance = I don't=20 understand PP for road use, just crazy!
George ( down = under)
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C5774F.19E6E050--