Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 814750 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:36:08 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net Received: from [65.176.161.140] (helo=earthlink.net) by smtpauth08.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1DDXMh-0005r0-4k for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:35:23 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple; s=test1; d=earthlink.net; h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer; b=UyADaQKBb4PWaAeAoos603K0HLG098VA49ePG9ki0jx62NYPiOAxjfc6nRbbxTV0; Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:36:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: P port intake design Content-Type: text/plain; delsp=yes; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) From: Jerry Hey To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <75ADAECA-9A6A-11D9-A551-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) X-ELNK-Trace: 8104856d7830ec6b1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec790f548ba20957b5aea67eb83f7b45e36a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 65.176.161.140 Ed, you are right on all counts. Space and Ease of fabrication and the idea of cold side fuel all play a part. If I go to an injector close the the butterfly such as Power Sport is doing, then I will have to go to a single injector as there is not room down there for two. I like using two injectors if I can. P ports (if the runners are not too large) can generate some howling velocities, probably more than an intake with four runners, that I hope will help with the throttle response. But we shall see. This is an experiment and I will change what does not work. Jerry On Monday, March 21, 2005, at 07:08 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: > No error Jerry, but wonder why are you putting the injectors so far > away > from the port? Space? Ease of fabrication? I tried putting my four > injectors 21 inches away from the port myself and found that while I > could > not tell any difference in power( up or down), I found a distinctive > hesitation bog if I opened the throttle quickly. Also it was hell to > start > on a cold morning. But, a PP port may be a different animal in those > regards - actually cold starting should be OK as any liquid fuel will > flow > down hill. With my plugs up it has to flow up hill {:>). > > Good luck, we are all eagerly awaiting the results and I have two > almost new > rotor housings just waiting. > > Ed Anderson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Hey" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Monday, March 21, 2005 6:34 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] P port intake design > > >> I've been messing with the p port intake design. I think it is about >> ready to build. If anybody sees a glaring stupidity or even a subtle >> one, please let me know. >> >> Still to be resolved is which injectors to use. Tracy, do you have >> any suggestions? Using the 80 per cent rule, I need injectors for >> around 260 hp. Thanks Jerry >> >> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ---- > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > ---- > > >>>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >