Return-Path: Received: from out008.verizon.net ([206.46.170.108] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 375237 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:38:45 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.108; envelope-from=finn.lassen@verizon.net Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out008.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040823173814.HIZT8960.out008.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: <412A2B73.8000607@verizon.net> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 13:37:55 -0400 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EM-2 MAP readings References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------070808090200030107060703" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out008.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Mon, 23 Aug 2004 12:38:14 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070808090200030107060703 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I forget what your current setup is. But how about ram air? Does it make any difference which way the prop turns? Finn Russell Duffy wrote: > 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? > > > > Hi Tommy, > > > > I wish I could say there was something scientific about my selection, > but in fact, it's just the TB that I got with the wrapover manifold > from Atkins. Considering how poorly the manifold was matched, I can't > say I have any real confidence that the TB was a good choice either. > > > > Since Ed was having good results with his 1.75" OD (about 42mm ID) > intake runners, I decided to use those also, along with the 42 mm > TB. This worked very well on the B drive, and smaller prop, but I > just don't know if it's working well on the C drive and monster prop > yet. The real test will be trying to get the cruise rpms up to the > 7000 range. That's where the restriction would really become a problem. > > > > Rusty (just don't know yet) > > > > > --------------070808090200030107060703 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I forget what your current setup is. But how about ram air? Does it make any difference which way the prop turns?

Finn

Russell Duffy wrote:

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?

Hi Tommy,

I wish I could say there was something scientific about my selection, but in fact, it's just the TB that I got with the wrapover manifold from Atkins. Considering how poorly the manifold was matched, I can't say I have any real confidence that the TB was a good choice either.

Since Ed was having good results with his 1.75" OD (about 42mm ID) intake runners, I decided to use those also, along with the 42 mm TB.  This worked very well on the B drive, and smaller prop, but I just don't know if it's working well on the C drive and monster prop yet. The real test will be trying to get the cruise rpms up to the 7000 range. That's where the restriction would really become a problem.

Rusty (just don't know yet)

--------------070808090200030107060703--