Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <42AD9C19.4090606@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:45:45 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: More RX-8 Manifold Thoughts
References: <list-992784@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-992784@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

BillDube@killacycle.com wrote:

>
>         "Simplified" is the key word. The six-port is as complicated 
> as it is so that it will have a good idle, low emissions, good low-end 
> torque, good mid-range torque ,snappy throttle response and 247 HP. 
> All I want is the 247 HP. I am simplifying the manifold by eliminating 
> everything that isn't needed to provide 247 HP and good top-end 
> performance.
>
>         You will have to build a manifold for the four port. You will 
> eliminate everything that is not needed for top-end performance, just 
> like I plan to do with the six port. Two more runners really don't add 
> significant effort to the task.
>
>         The difference is that when I am done, the engine will have 
> 20% more power.


Bill, if you're going to eliminate all the 'stuff' and the port will 
always be open, why not remove the wall between the side ports and make 
them one? 

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