Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.192; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <006401c79d99$78395990$16cbeddc@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2064067@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] intake tubing
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:21:25 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="utf-8";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> Does everyone understand what it is I'm trying to do with this intake 
> tubing or am I speaking greek? I'm so tired of P.L. and his inebriated 
> remarks. I swear he is on a binge right now.
>
>  Do we as a rotory community not need this type of lite weight aluminum 
> tubing that is perfectly matched to our ports? I thought one of the big 
> obstacals was our intake manifolds have things changed and I wasn't aware? 
> OR is everyone happy with using a Paul -Port. Which by the way talking to 
> Dave at Mazdatrix revealed several inconsistencies in his P-port 
> reporting.
>
> This whole thing started becasue I can't find a manifold that isn't a 
> chunk of extruded hunk of aluminum that weighs more than my car.
> Seems easy enought to just weld four tubes of the correct size to an 
> aluminum plate. and that is it. We can mandral bend them have them 
> straight what ever. I guess I'm surprized by the groups reaction or lack 
> of.
>
> Tony

Tony,
I can't speak on the tube as I'm going to use round P-Port - however on 
P-ports I would love to hear what Dave (at Mazdatrix) says on P-ports and 
how that is different to PL's methods. I must say I have my own ideas which 
I have put forward, but I don't think they went to the masses - again!!
George ( down-under)