Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.86; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <42ADC2CA.50605@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:30:50 -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: Manifold Thoughts - 6 to 4 ports
References: <list-1000392@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1000392@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dale Rogers wrote:

>Ernest,
>
>   You wrote:
>
>  
>
>>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? 
>>    
>>
>
>   After reading Paul Yaw's site, specifically this page:
>
>http://www.yawpower.com/Flow%20Testing.html
>
>I wouldn't want to do that without something to verify the 
>flow characteristics.  I was amazed at how easy is was to 
>make things worse by making them bigger.
>
>Dale R.
>
>
>  
>

I agree, Dale.  In place of actual testing (which will require I build a 
flow bench, find some place to put it, and then actually learn how to 
use it), I would accept someone knowledgable saying that it is a good 
idea.  I've been studying this idea for a while.  Looking through 
another list, there is a poster named "Judge Ito" that everyone seems to 
revere for his porting prowess.  His take on opening up and combining 
the 6 to make it only 4 ports would give it the top end power of a 
peripheal port, but would severely compromise the low end power and 
idle.  As Bill alluded to earlier, who cares.

I'm still building fuselage ribs, but in a few weeks I'll be digging a 
lot harder to nail down this will actually work, as I begin to build an 
intake manifold.

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