X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from smtp2go.com ([207.58.142.213] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTPS id 5083140 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:48:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.58.142.213; envelope-from=crobinson@medialantern.com Received: from l3-nm-254.wwe.com ([63.208.148.254] helo=[10.10.50.99]) by smtp2go.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QpNYv-00035b-RI for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Aug 2011 16:47:55 +0000 Message-ID: <4E3C1EC0.4040507@medialantern.com> Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 12:48:00 -0400 From: Chad Robinson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Ideas for direct injection References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 8/5/2011 12:44 PM, Ernest Christley wrote: > Chad Robinson wrote: > >> Are you happy with your composite manifold? > > Happy with the manifold? Hmmm? > > ... > > Physically, the composite intake has performed well for the few test > trials I've done. I have no flying hours on it, and only a couple > hours of ground runs at most. I can't remember, are you NA or turbo? I recall one of my concerns was that I'm turbo, and I was worried about things like boost pressure and stress cracking because of that.