X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from tomcat.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1011697 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:03:54 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov Received: from mungo.al.noaa.gov (mungo.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.126]) by tomcat.al.noaa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.0) with ESMTP id j5NK37Bn010232 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:03:07 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050623135345.03d8fe98@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:01:58 -0600 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Forward from Mistral Engines SA In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 11:34 AM 6/23/2005, you wrote: >Group, > I know this will be of interest to many.......Francois Badoux does not > monitor >this group.......For your information the intake manifold is designed to >fit both >4 and 6 port second generation (86-91) engines......FWIW >-- Looking at the photos, they seem to have combined the secondary ports with the outer primary ports. The timing on these ports is quite different. I would think that you would want to keep them separate to maximize the ram effect of the secondary port. I'm no expert, so I could be missing some key point. Bill Dube' What sort of HP are engines making with these manifolds?