X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1001520 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:41:57 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jun 2005 09:41:12 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j5EDdxNa024954 for ; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:40:52 -0400 Received: from [64.102.45.251] ([64.102.45.251]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:40:52 -0400 Message-ID: <42AEDE5F.7060004@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:40:47 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Manifold Thoughts - 6 to 4 ports References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Jun 2005 13:40:52.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE91D8F0:01C570E6] George Lendich wrote: >. 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) > > > > That's a seems like a little bit more of a R&D program than I want to take on right now, George (and I'm fully aware that the difficulty may be more perception than reality). I'm confident that I can handle a porting job, as I've had to do a lot of metal 'sculpturing' to fit all these tubes together. Now, it's just a question of what to cut away for me. I believe the same thing is said about a PP that is said about what I think I'd like to do...rough idle and no low-end power. Am I correct that the solution is short runners with a closely fitted throttle? -- ,|"|"|, | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |