X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
Received: from mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.183] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4)
  with ESMTPS id 1000977 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:56:16 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.183; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Received: from george (d220-236-0-190.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.0.190])
	by mail02.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j5DMtRbu023138
	for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:55:28 +1000
Message-ID: <009401c5706b$bc321ea0$be00ecdc@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1000467@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Manifold Thoughts - 6 to 4 ports
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:00:46 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

.  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.

Ernest,
I would have to agree entirely - so why not make it real simple and make a
PP.
George ( down under)