Return-Path: Received: from [206.228.212.23] (HELO mail.statesville.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 373024 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:15:17 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.228.212.23; envelope-from=twjames@statesville.net Received: from TWJames [63.162.171.178] by mail.statesville.net with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.12) id A0153740288; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:14:45 -0400 From: "Tommy James" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EM-2 MAP readings Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 22:14:42 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01C48703.19A56D60" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 Thread-Index: AcSHFG/r1KdpWeJYSF6p/R7d5LJATAAD8RIA In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <200408202214852.SM01204@TWJames> X-RBL-Warning: REVDNS: This E-mail was sent from a MUA/MTA 63.162.171.178 with no reverse DNS entry. X-RBL-Warning: SPAMHEADERS: This E-mail has headers consistent with spam [4000020e]. X-Declude-Sender: twjames@statesville.net [63.162.171.178] X-Note: Scanned for Spam This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C48703.19A56D60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell, I think you went to the 42mm bores to gain more intake velocity. What do you think about that idea now v. the idea of 48mm? Lurkingly, Tommy<>< _____ I just hung up with TWM, and they believe those ports are completely accurate in their TB. He asked what size TB I had, what engine, and about what HP I thought it was capable of. After hearing all that, he said my 42 mm bores were simply too small, and that I'd need at least 45's. When I pointed out that my runners were only about 42 mm, he basically said "start over" :-) He did mention the possibility of adding a crossover tube between the two runners, to allow one to steal from the other, but I probably wouldn't do that unless I was committed to building another intake if it didn't work. ------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C48703.19A56D60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Russell, I think you went to the = 42mm bores to gain more intake velocity.  What do you think about that = idea now v. the idea of 48mm?

Lurkingly,

Tommy<><

 

 

 

I just hung up with TWM, and they = believe those ports are completely accurate in their TB.  He asked what = size TB I had, what engine, and about what HP I thought it was capable = of.  After hearing all that, he said my 42 mm bores were simply too = small, and that I'd need at least 45's.  When I pointed out that my = runners were only about 42 mm, he basically said "start over" = :-)   He did mention the possibility of adding a crossover tube between the two = runners, to allow one to steal from the other, but I probably wouldn't do that = unless I was committed to building another intake if it didn't work.  =

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_002D_01C48703.19A56D60-- --- [Pre-scanned for viruses by Internet America.]