Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.148; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43EB5686.70201@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 09:49:42 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Six port bolt-on manfold progress (was:  RX-8)
References: <list-975788@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-975788@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

rijakits wrote:

> I see....
> Lighten the Rotors, Dynamic balance - in any case....
> Smack on a Turbo/Intercooler - P-Port and keep it nice and low with 
> the RPM!
> Thanks for the info...
>  
> TJ
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Ed Anderson <mailto:eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>     *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 08, 2006 11:26 PM
>     *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Six port bolt-on manfold progress (was:
>     RX-8)
>
>     Having the older 13B, which was redline in the auto at 7500 rpm, I
>     would certainly not feel comfortable with a higher rpm under
>     continuous operation.  Now, with lightened rotors and dynamic
>     balancing, I might reconsider {:>)
>

Even with perfectly balanced or weightless rotors, wouldn't the problem 
with 9000RPM be the centrifugal pressure of the apex seals on the rotor 
housings?  Can they stand that sort of continuous workload, or would it 
just require pumping more oil into the chamber?

-- 
         ,|"|"|,               Ernest Christley     |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----     Dyke Delta Builder    |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |