Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42B76AFE.1090609@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 20:18:54 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fuel Injector Position (was  Re: Makingprogress
 on Chris n Dave's Velocity Engine)
References: <list-1007959@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1007959@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

But wouldn't that be true of ANY injectors placed a significant distance 
from the block?  I think carb ice is pretty much always associated with 
fuel sprayed into a venturi, and the injectors in our application are 
always downstream of the "venturi" formed by the partially open throttle.
I wouldn't worry ... Jim S.

david mccandless wrote:

>     On PL's recent PP dyno run, he stated that with the injectors
>     placed near the entry of the runners, there was considerable
>     evaporative cooling taking place and as the tubes were running
>     very cold VE should be good. The worry to me here is that with the
>     TB at the other end of the runner,ie close to the port, there is a
>     real risk of ice build up on the throttle body butterfly. The old
>     bugbear of carb ice is back. FWIW, Dave McC
>
>
>     since the
>
>         ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Jerry Hey
>          
>         based on Paul Lamar's current p port testing there is no
>         problem with placing the injectors at the far end of the
>         runners. This is also backed up by an article on the internet
>         (How to Fabricate an Intake Manifold) The idle issue is not
>         with injector location but rather with butterfly location.
>
>