X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.198] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTPS id 1026528 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 18:48:10 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.198; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d211-31-107-82.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [211.31.107.82]) by mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j5TMlJi0003488 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:47:20 +1000 Message-ID: <002b01c57cfc$8ad2f0d0$526b1fd3@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: P Ports working on dyno Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 08:47:34 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C57D50.5C328E80" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C57D50.5C328E80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm with you on this Jerry, George ( down under) I don't understand why you think the velocity is guaranteed to be higher = in the PP runner? That all depends on the size of the runners, and = ports. You can't just make a blanket statement like that.=20 Not being an engineer I am used to my own stupid mistakes. The = reasoning behind the statement come mainly from two considerations: = first the p ports breath a lot better than any side port configuration = thus more air is flowing through them; secondly, there are only two = runners instead of four so naturally the speed will have to be double = assuming the same size runners. If in the case of side port, the intake = runner i.d.s are reduced, the skin friction will be greatly increased. = Face it, side ports are a drag. There is no way velocities in a four = runner intake can ever approach those of a two runner p port. IMHO, = Jerry ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C57D50.5C328E80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm with you on this = Jerry,

George ( down under)

I don't understand why you think the velocity is guaranteed to be = higher in=20 the PP runner? That all depends on the size of the runners, and=20 ports. You can't just make a blanket statement like = that.

Not=20 being an engineer I am used to my own stupid mistakes. The reasoning = behind=20 the statement come mainly from two considerations: first the p ports = breath a=20 lot better than any side port configuration thus more air is flowing = through=20 them; secondly, there are only two runners instead of four so = naturally the=20 speed will have to be double assuming the same size runners. If in the = case of=20 side port, the intake runner i.d.s are reduced, the skin friction will = be=20 greatly increased. Face it, side ports are a drag. There is no way = velocities=20 in a four runner intake can ever approach those of a two runner p = port. IMHO,=20 Jerry
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C57D50.5C328E80--