X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop: No license found, only first 5 messages were scanned Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:03:59 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from secure5.liveoakhosting.com ([64.49.254.21] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.1) with ESMTPS id 1206415 for lml@lancaironline.net; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 08:59:12 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.49.254.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com Received: (qmail 1231 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2006 07:58:26 -0500 Received: from 216-107-97-170.wan.networktel.net (HELO ?10.0.1.4?) (216.107.97.170) by rs5.liveoakhosting.com with SMTP; 26 Jun 2006 07:58:26 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v624) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--926669226 X-Original-Message-Id: <2b0a148678d9d0f0101203ce1c0b2d63@advancedpilot.com> From: Walter Atkinson Subject: Re: [LML] Straight bore vs choke X-Original-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:58:26 -0500 X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.624) --Apple-Mail-2--926669226 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed If one runs the mixture properly to keep the peak ICP out of the choke=20= area, having choke in the barrel is a good thing. If one operates the=20= mixture in such a manner so as to place the thetaPP too close to TDC,=20 then not having choke could be a way to overcome the error slightly. =20 Having no choke is one way of covering up poor technique. It is a=20 sub-optimal way to do things IMO. Walter On Jun 26, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Tom Gourley wrote: I recently ran across the website for Chuck Ney Enterpreses=20 (http://www.chuckneyent.com/) and read where he advocates straight=A0bore=20= cylinders instead of tapered, or choked, cylinders.=A0 I'm assuming the=20= engine manufacturers have good reasons for designing taper into their=20 cylinders (variable temperature expansion characteristics over the=20 length of the cylinder?) Mr. Ney, on the other hand, claims a vast=20 amount of experience indicating better performance and longevity by=20 boring the cylinders straight.=A0 I know we have some very knowledgeable=20= engine people on the LML so I'd like to get their take on straight vs=20 choke. =A0 Tom Gourley Legacy builder =A0= --Apple-Mail-2--926669226 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=ISO-8859-1 If one runs the mixture properly to keep the peak ICP out of the choke area, having choke in the barrel is a good thing. If one operates the mixture in such a manner so as to place the thetaPP too close to TDC, then not having choke could be a way to overcome the error slightly.=20 Having no choke is one way of covering up poor technique. It is a sub-optimal way to do things IMO. Walter On Jun 26, 2006, at 12:24 AM, Tom Gourley wrote: ArialI recently ran across the website for Chuck Ney Enterpreses = (0000,0000,EEEEhttp://www.chuckneyent.com/) and read where he advocates straight=A0bore cylinders instead of tapered, or choked, cylinders.=A0 I'm assuming the engine manufacturers have good reasons for designing taper into their cylinders (variable temperature expansion characteristics over the length of the cylinder?) Mr. Ney, on the other hand, claims a vast amount of experience indicating better performance and longevity by boring the cylinders straight.=A0 I know we have some very knowledgeable engine people on the LML so I'd like to get their take on straight vs = choke. =A0 ArialTom = Gourley ArialLegacy = builder =A0= --Apple-Mail-2--926669226--