Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 815002 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:45:20 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.31; envelope-from=daveleonard@cox.net Received: from davidandanne ([68.101.147.215]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with SMTP id <20050322034424.YEUU18934.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@davidandanne> for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:44:24 -0500 From: "DaveLeonard" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Back pressure test results Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:44:26 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 I did an experiment today to see what effect back pressure from a turbine housing has on performance. My engine is currently set up using an empty stock turbine housing as my manifold/muffler. First I ran the engine with the housing and exhaust pipe in place, then I removed the housing and ran it with just the manifold in place. Here are the results given in static RPM: MAP 20 MAP 25 MAP 28.5 (WOT) With Turbine Housing 2700 3350 4700 With Manifold only 2790 3450 4790 The sound was notably louder without the housing (neighbor came out to see what was going on), but not as much of a difference as I was expecting. These results have convinced me to stick with a turbo (not as much detriment from back pressure as I thought), still working on the installing the TO4B, but it probably won't be done until the Fall (working too hard, and I don't want to interrupt my IFR training schedule). Dave Leonard