Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from [209.114.234.2] (HELO IPOfCard1.guest-tek.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3179818 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:47:58 -0400 Received: from USDCLES112NB160 ([198.18.1.149]) by IPOfCard1.guest-tek.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i3K3Yiu31695 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:34:44 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: intake ideas? Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 23:48:31 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C42668.D2089A90" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C42668.D2089A90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Actually, Rusty. I have always been fuel injected. My first manifold was using 50 mm twin throat TMW Webber throttle body (with 4 injectors), a racing beat webber DOE manifold which I flew on a 86 six port block. I only had one flight on that engine with the new (longer smaller diameter) manifold before my HALTECH fuel injection system failed, so did not get a good comparison. Thanks. I was thinking that you changed injection systems at about the same time as the intake, but couldn't remember exactly. However, on that one flight with the old engine and new manifold I did note that my rate of climb increased by 300 fpm over the old manifold. Certainly not a conclusive nor exhaust test and comparison, but enough to convince me to keep the new manifold when I installed the turbo block. As good as this sounds, I've learned (the hard way) not to believe anything I notice on any single flight. While I don't doubt that you could have had some improvement, one flight is not enough to quantify it, so I have to remain skeptical. In just about every theory of induction tuning I have looked at (and its been quite a few), if they agreed on anything - it was longer, smaller diameter tubes favored torque at lower rpms and short, larger diameter tubes favored power at the higher rpms. This is a good general starting point I guess. I'm still bummed that I can't run 7k rpm, but it just isn't efficient with the 2.17 drive, and going to the 2.85 would undo the last 4 months of work, plus some. As painful as it is, I have to draw the line somewhere, but it isn't stopping me from dreaming about the next rotary powered plane. After the Airbike, my sights are set on 300 mph :-) Rusty (too many plans, too little time and money) ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C42668.D2089A90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Actually, Rusty. I have = always been=20 fuel injected. My first manifold was using 50 mm twin throat TMW = Webber=20 throttle body (with 4 injectors), a racing beat webber DOE manifold = which I flew=20 on a 86 six port block. I only had one flight on that engine with = the new=20 (longer smaller diameter) manifold before my HALTECH fuel injection = system=20 failed, so did not get a good comparison.

Thanks. I was thinking that you = changed=20 injection systems at about the same time as the intake, but couldn't = remember=20 exactly.

However, on that one = flight with=20 the old engine and new manifold I did note that my rate of climb = increased by=20 300 fpm over the old manifold. Certainly not a conclusive nor = exhaust test=20 and comparison, but enough to convince me to keep the new manifold when = I=20 installed the turbo block.

As good as this sounds, I've learned (the hard = way) not to=20 believe anything I notice on any single flight. While I don't = doubt=20 that you could have had some improvement, one flight is not enough to = quantify=20 it, so I have to remain skeptical. =20

In just about every theory of = induction=20 tuning I have looked at (and its been quite a few), if they agreed on = anything=20 - it was longer, smaller diameter tubes favored torque at lower = rpms and=20 short, larger diameter tubes favored power at the higher = rpms.

This is a good general starting point I = guess. I'm=20 still bummed that I can't run 7k rpm, but it just isn't = efficient with the=20 2.17 drive, and going to the 2.85 would undo the last 4 months of work, = plus=20 some. As painful as it is, I have to draw the line somewhere, but = it isn't=20 stopping me from dreaming about the next rotary powered plane. = After the=20 Airbike, my sights are set on 300 mph = :-)

Rusty (too many plans, too little time and=20 money)

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C42668.D2089A90--