Message

Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 395392 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 06 Sep 2004 14:07:13 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.72; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040906180642.FZRE1758.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 14:06:42 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Manifold Pressure Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 13:06:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c4943c$44e9d420$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C49412.5C13CC20" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C49412.5C13CC20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks David and Ed for the comments. I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the MAP variables, and the conclusion continues to be that my intake runners, and TB are too small for best WOT "MAP", though that's not necessarily a bad thing. I guess the important thing for me to keep in mind is that improving the MAP, may not improve the power. It's entirely possible that my smaller runners, and subsequent higher velocities are giving me more power than I'd get with bigger runners. I certainly can't deny that I'm making significantly more power than in any previous NA configuration. I would expect that I'm matching, or slightly exceeding Tracy's 13B static, and climb power in my current configuration. He had a good pressure recovery scoop on the 13B, so it remains to be seen whether I can match his power at speed. Bottom line is that I'm happy with the current power that's being produced, and any improvement beyond this point would require a huge investment in time, and effort. At the moment, I have far bigger problems, like adding enough oil cooling to make up for this extra power. At least the current cooler isn't leaking (yet). Thanks, Rusty (working on re-installing the series EWP) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C49412.5C13CC20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Thanks David and Ed for the=20 comments.

I believe I have a pretty good = understanding=20 of the MAP variables, and the conclusion continues to be that my intake = runners,=20 and TB are too small for best WOT "MAP", though that's not necessarily a = bad=20 thing.

I guess the important thing for = me to keep=20 in mind is that improving the MAP, may not improve the = power. It's=20 entirely possible that my smaller runners, and subsequent higher=20 velocities are giving me more power than I'd get with bigger=20 runners. I certainly can't deny that I'm making = significantly=20 more power than in any previous NA configuration. I would = expect that=20 I'm matching, or slightly exceeding Tracy's 13B static, and climb power = in my=20 current configuration. He had a good pressure recovery scoop on = the 13B,=20 so it remains to be seen whether I can match his power at speed. =20

Bottom line is that I'm happy = with the=20 current power that's being produced, and any improvement beyond this = point would=20 require a huge investment in time, and effort. At the moment, I = have far=20 bigger problems, like adding enough oil cooling to make up for this = extra=20 power. At least the current cooler isn't leaking (yet). =20

Thanks,

Rusty (working on re-installing = the series=20 EWP)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C49412.5C13CC20--