Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2939147 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:34:40 -0500 Received: from rad ([65.0.137.103]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20040119203439.ERKP1944.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:34:39 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Intake question Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 14:36:43 -0600 Message-ID: <022101c3decb$f346b2d0$6001a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0222_01C3DE99.A8AC42D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0222_01C3DE99.A8AC42D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Actually, Rusty, the secondary ports on the NA block and the turbo block = are different. In fact, when I saw the amount of gasket it reminded me of = the amount I see when I try a NA manifold against a turbo block. = Secondaries on the NA and Turbo are different.=20 =20 Ed Anderson=20 =20 I called up Atkins, and they said they never made a straight manifold = for the turbo block, though they did make one for an "early 4 port". I = think they're referring to something like the 84-85 13B in the RX-7, but I'm = not sure. They also made a straight manifold for the 6 port, which must be = what I have. Silly me, I actually expected the 6 port manifold to have 6 = ports, like the engine does. =20 =20 Next time I go to the hanger, you can bet that I'll be measuring some manifolds. I'm now wondering if the one I was using previously had the proper size ports. Ignorance is bliss :-) =20 I'm still not sure what I'll do. The manifold would certainly run like this, but it would never be right. At the moment, I'd like to get done = with this &*#$@ fiberglass oil cooler scoop. At least it's far better = looking than BUC. =20 Cheers, Rusty (who as you know, hates fiberglass) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0222_01C3DE99.A8AC42D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Actually, Rusty, the secondary = ports on the=20 NA block and the turbo block are different.  In fact, when I saw = the amount=20 of gasket it reminded me of the amount I see when I try a NA manifold = against a=20 turbo block.  Secondaries on the NA and Turbo are different. 
 
 Ed Anderson 
 
I called up Atkins, and they said they never = made=20 a straight manifold for the turbo block, though they did make = one for=20 an "early 4 port".  I think they're referring to something like the = 84-85=20 13B in the RX-7, but I'm not sure.  They also made a straight = manifold=20 for the 6 port, which must be what I have.  Silly me, I = actually=20 expected the 6 port manifold to have 6 ports, like the engine=20 does.  
 
Next time I go to the hanger, you can bet that = I'll be=20 measuring some manifolds.  I'm now wondering if the one I was using = previously had the proper size ports.  Ignorance is bliss=20 :-)
 
I'm still not=20 sure what I'll do.  The manifold would certainly run like = this,=20 but it would never be right.  At the moment, I'd like to get done = with this=20 &*#$@ fiberglass oil cooler scoop.  At least it's far better = looking=20 than BUC.
 
Cheers,
Rusty (who as=20 you know, hates fiberglass)  =


------=_NextPart_000_0222_01C3DE99.A8AC42D0--