Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.254.141.183; envelope-from=cbeazley@innovista.net
Message-ID: <4BB01404.2000109@innovista.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 21:44:20 -0500
From: cbeazley <cbeazley@innovista.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: P-Port performance
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi George;

What is the meaning / origin of the value "176.85" in your "Diameter of 
Inlet" calculation?
You should also try running your calculation with 8000rpm and 120%VE.

SAE900032 has a bunch of useful intake and exhaust info including 
volumetric efficiency charts versus Pport sizes and intake lengths.
There are other useful SAE papers that Paul posts on the other list 
periodically.

Cheers
Cary

> ?
> Naturally I take on board all Lynn and Ed say, as they have helped me 
> understand how things work and Ed with the maths to give a ball park 
> figure rather than a WAG, on performance.
>  
> So I have condensed the figures Ed gave me a tried to make it as 
> simple as possible to show others - see attached. I hope this helps 
> those willing to look into the maths.
>  
> You will notice that the results strongly agree with what Lynn has 
> stated (in general terms). This in turn strongly agrees with 
> what powersport was using i.e. 40mm up to 6,000 rpm and 44mm up to 
> 7,500rpm (checked this with Bill). What Lynn has suggested is 50mm 
> reduced 15% 42.5mm - hello! I've seen that figure before - dia 
> required at 7,200 rpm. I also agree with what Lynn suggests on P-port 
> shapes - I just find round easier to do, so round is probably not 
> optimum, but good enough for some.
>  
> Some of the Renesis figures I've increased hp in line with compression 
> increase and rounded off some end result figures.
> Hope it helps - it sure helped me.
> George ( down under)