|
|
Ernst,
I'm more than a little concerned at suddenly increasing a runner volume - if
that's what you mean.
I reflect back to a problem with Steam - when it is expanded into a larger
diameter pipe, it's no longer steam but hot water. The water droplets drop
out of suspension, due to the pressure change.
I feel the same happens with fuel - but perhaps some of the engineers ( on
here) can add further to this.
George (down under)
Found the answer to the question I had the other day. On a 6-port, why
not just combine the two runners in the side housing?
From http://www.mazdatrix.com/faq/port6p.htm
"If the separate ports (in the end housings) are simply made into one
large port, the bottom and mid-range torque suffer a lot, and the port
velocity is compromised as the intake flows from the manifold into the
intake runner. The intake port timing of this configuration is: later on
opening than a peripheral port, but roughly equal to intake closing on a
peripheral port! That's a LOT of timing and port volume for a street car."
Bottom and mid-range torque are all but meaningless to us as long as
it'll idle. Right?
The port velocity will only be compromised if you were using the stock
intake that. I don't know of any airplane builders doing that. If
you're building your own anyway, you'd make the runner big enough so
there isn't an upstream obstruction and maintain the velocity throughout.
It seems to me that joining the outside runners on a 6-port is an
excellent idea for an airplane application. Somebody set me straight
before I do something stupid.
--
,|"|"|, |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|