X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from pan.gwi.net ([207.5.128.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.1) with ESMTPS id 2813294 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:53:41 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.5.128.165; envelope-from=silvius@gwi.net Received: from yourlk4rlmsu41 (bb-216-195-174-159.gwi.net [216.195.174.159]) by pan.gwi.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id m2MFqvAv025252 for ; Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:53:00 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from silvius@gwi.net) Message-ID: <012001c88c3d$31c72e90$9faec3d8@yourlk4rlmsu41> From: "Michael Silvius" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Gravity fed carb? peer review Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:53:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Ernest; No not exactly and it is one of the things I have to think about when putting this thing together. I would like to keep the intake length as short as possible yet keep the carb low for gravity feed, but that puts it low on the port side of the firewall where the exhaust wants to naturally go out. It may mean longer exhaust runner to make things go out the starboard side of the firewall? and some serious shielding and blast tubes to keep it all cool. I definitely have to consider this issue as well. thanks: Michael ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernest Christley" > Are you comfortable with the intake running close to the exhaust for > such a long length?