X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.4.51.79] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c5) with ESMTP id 920960 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:31:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.4.51.79; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 30 Apr 2005 18:30:54 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 64.4.51.207 by BAY107-DAV7.phx.gbl with DAV; Sun, 01 May 2005 01:30:54 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [64.4.51.207] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Inserts Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:30:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0114_01C54DCB.E1D7E710" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 Seal-Send-Time: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 21:30:51 -0400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 May 2005 01:30:54.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[6B1BD060:01C54DED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01C54DCB.E1D7E710 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I did say that I found no significant difference BUT, that was based on = two different engines with two different intake configurations. The = splitters were in a 6 port engine (normal) and the turbo ports were in a = 4 port. This was also with an -A drive (2.176 : 1) where the rpm was = held lower. I agree with Ed that the turbo ports may make a bigger = difference at higher rpm. =20 In summary, there were too many variables involved to make any hard = declarations about the effect of exhaust ports alone. But the effect = on noise was obvious - The turbos are MUCH louder. If I had it to do = over, I would have put splitters in my 20B. I really like quiet flying = (quiet being a relative word). Tracy (doing dreaded fiberglass stuff on the RV-8) Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Inserts I could be wrong (I think I was once a long time ago) but I = think I read something by Tracy to the fact that there was no noticeable = performance difference between the two housings.( Correct me if I'm = wrong Tracy) Georges B.=20 =20 =20 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005 >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01C54DCB.E1D7E710 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I did say that I found no significant difference BUT, that was = based on two=20 different engines with two different intake configurations. The = splitters=20 were in a 6 port engine (normal) and the turbo ports were in a 4 = port. =20 This was also with an -A drive (2.176 : 1) where the rpm = was held=20 lower. I agree with Ed that the turbo ports may make a bigger = difference=20 at higher rpm.

In summary, there were too many variables involved to make any hard = declarations about the effect of exhaust ports alone. But = the effect=20 on noise was obvious - The turbos are MUCH louder. If = I had it=20 to do over, I would have put splitters in my 20B. I really like = quiet=20 flying (quiet being a relative word).

Tracy (doing dreaded fiberglass stuff on the RV-8)

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Inserts

I could be wrong (I think I was once a long time ago) = but I=20 think I read something by Tracy to the fact that there was = no=20 noticeable performance difference between the two housings.( = Correct me=20 if I'm wrong Tracy)

Georges B.

No = virus=20 found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG = Anti-Virus.
Version:=20 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: = 4/29/2005
>> =20 Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> =20 Archive: =20 http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

= ------=_NextPart_000_0114_01C54DCB.E1D7E710--