X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail28.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.133.169] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTPS id 981353 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 01 Jun 2005 19:40:10 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.133.169; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d220-236-25-37.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.25.37]) by mail28.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j51NdK7H016634 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:39:21 +1000 Message-ID: <00b901c56703$d4d4b600$2519ecdc@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Combining ports on 6-port Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 09:44:19 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Ernst, I'm more than a little concerned at suddenly increasing a runner volume - if that's what you mean. I reflect back to a problem with Steam - when it is expanded into a larger diameter pipe, it's no longer steam but hot water. The water droplets drop out of suspension, due to the pressure change. I feel the same happens with fuel - but perhaps some of the engineers ( on here) can add further to this. George (down under) > Found the answer to the question I had the other day. On a 6-port, why > not just combine the two runners in the side housing? > > From http://www.mazdatrix.com/faq/port6p.htm > > "If the separate ports (in the end housings) are simply made into one > large port, the bottom and mid-range torque suffer a lot, and the port > velocity is compromised as the intake flows from the manifold into the > intake runner. The intake port timing of this configuration is: later on > opening than a peripheral port, but roughly equal to intake closing on a > peripheral port! That's a LOT of timing and port volume for a street car." > > > Bottom and mid-range torque are all but meaningless to us as long as > it'll idle. Right? > > The port velocity will only be compromised if you were using the stock > intake that. I don't know of any airplane builders doing that. If > you're building your own anyway, you'd make the runner big enough so > there isn't an upstream obstruction and maintain the velocity throughout. > > It seems to me that joining the outside runners on a 6-port is an > excellent idea for an airplane application. Somebody set me straight > before I do something stupid. > > -- > ,|"|"|, | > ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta | > o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org | > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >