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  |

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html