Message

X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTP id 1025917 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:16:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.67; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm60aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050629151553.FEKS28027.imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm60aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:15:53 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm60aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050629151553.IKUF7767.ibm60aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:15:53 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: P Ports working on dyno Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:15:54 -0500 Message-ID: <001401c57cbd$71dfe950$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0015_01C57C93.8909E150" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C57C93.8909E150 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable There is no way velocities in a four runner intake can ever approach = those of a two runner p port. IMHO, Jerry=20 =20 The reason I question the velocity theory is that my system uses a = Mazdatrix intake, which combines the primary and secondary in the first 5 inches = or so, then I have two runners (one for each rotor). These are only about = 41 mm ID, which are really too small for max power. There should be = absolutely no shortage of velocity, and the throttle response was still horrid with remote mounted injectors. =20 =20 The good thing about this is that there's nothing unsafe about testing = it. You'll know exactly how it works before you ever line up on the runway = to fly it, so there's no harm in trying it. I flew mine for about 5 hours, = but it scared me enough that I changed it quickly. =20 =20 I forget, what plane are you building your engine for? I know you said = you hoped to have the engine running by the end of the year, but when do you expect the plane to be done? =20 =20 Cheer, Rusty (need to go pester some customers)=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C57C93.8909E150 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

There is no way velocities in a four runner intake can ever = approach those=20 of a two runner p port. IMHO, Jerry

The reason=20 I question the velocity theory is that my system uses a Mazdatrix = intake,=20 which combines the primary and secondary in the first 5 inches or so, = then I=20 have two runners (one for each rotor). These are only = about 41 mm=20 ID, which are really too small for max power. There = should be=20 absolutely no shortage of velocity, and the throttle response was still = horrid=20 with remote mounted injectors.

The good=20 thing about this is that there's nothing unsafe about testing it. = You'll=20 know exactly how it works before you ever line up on the runway to = fly it,=20 so there's no harm in trying it. I flew mine for about 5 hours, = but it=20 scared me enough that I changed it=20 quickly.

I forget,=20 what plane are you building your engine for? I know you said = you=20 hoped to have the engine running by the end of the year, but when = do you=20 expect the plane to be done?

Cheer,

Rusty (need=20 to go pester some customers)

------=_NextPart_000_0015_01C57C93.8909E150--