X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da05.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.147] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.10) with ESMTP id 4553010 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:19:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.147; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (imo-ma02.mx.aol.com [64.12.78.137]) by imr-da05.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id oA31IUK1016310 for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:18:30 -0400 Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-ma02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.eac.b07292c (43892) for ; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:18:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-d16.mail.aol.com (magic-d16.mail.aol.com [172.19.155.132]) by cia-dc05.mx.aol.com (v129.5) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC055-ab744cd0b861194; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 21:18:25 -0400 From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 21:18:25 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Finite Amplitude Wave was Sausage Re: EM2 Numbers To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a8f62.fd2d7e0.3a021261_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5382 X-AOL-IP: 72.187.199.116 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Lehanover@aol.com --part1_a8f62.fd2d7e0.3a021261_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2010 5:17:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, msteitle@gmail.com writes: Lynn, I've been thinking for a while now that going with a tangential muffler wasn't the best choice for a p-port motor. It definitely produces more HP than the side port, but not as much as I had expected. Maybe the exhaust system is the problem. Good thing that I can tig weld. ;-) Based on what you've just said, I suppose the p-port isn't the best motor for turbo-charging? Not much of a problem when there is some boost available. Off idle would be very short on torque. Most factory looking turbo manifolds are dreadful looking boxes. Unequal runner lengths. Cast iron and so-on. You just want a few pounds of boost and the major advantage will be the lack of noise. Most could have had short runners moving the assembly to a more advantageous location. Looks like I need to get busy ordering some inconel tubing. The problem will be fitting it under the cowl. As I recall, ideal exhaust runner length is 31". Is this for a specific narrow rpm range or will this work from 4500 rpm - 7500 rpm? Would I need a different runner length for 6500 rpm? What diameter tubing works best? A national champions engine man told me to look for multiples of 11" for a 12A between 7500 and 10,000 RPM. I used 24" primaries in 1 7/8" ID tubing. Maybe 2" ID for a 13B but that is very big. Once you have equal length headers, the length becomes less important, and tuning returns to the intake runner length. I would make up test systems in thick walled mild steel tubing. Just order 180s and cut up whatever it takes. Measure for matching length with a flex hose similar to a small shop vac. Once you have what you want, then start cutting the expensive stuff. Lynn E. Hanover --part1_a8f62.fd2d7e0.3a021261_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 11/2/2010 5:17:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20 msteitle@gmail.com writes:
Lynn, =20

I've been thinking for a while now that going with a tangential muf= fler=20 wasn't the best choice for a p-port motor.  It definitely produces= more=20 HP than the side port, but not as much as I had expected.  Maybe th= e=20 exhaust system is the problem.  Good thing that I can tig weld.=20  ;-)
 
Based on what you've just said, I suppose the p-port isn't the best= motor=20 for turbo-charging?  
Not much of a problem when there is some boost available. Off idle wo= uld be=20 very short on torque.
Most factory looking turbo manifolds are dreadful looking boxes. Uneq= ual=20 runner lengths. Cast iron and so-on. You just want a few pounds of boost= and the=20 major advantage will be the lack of noise. Most could have had short=20 runners moving the assembly to a more advantageous location.
Looks like I need to get busy ordering some inconel tubing.  T= he=20 problem will be fitting it under the cowl.  As I recall, ideal exha= ust=20 runner length is 31".  Is this for a specific narrow rpm range or= will=20 this work from 4500 rpm - 7500 rpm?  Would I need a different runne= r=20 length for 6500 rpm?  What diameter tubing works=20 best?
A national champions engine man told me to look for multiples of 11"= for a=20 12A between 7500 and 10,000 RPM. I used 24" primaries in 1 7/8" ID tubing.= Maybe=20 2" ID for a 13B but that is very big. Once you have equal length headers,= the=20 length becomes less important, and tuning returns to the intake runner len= gth.=20
 
I would make up test systems in thick walled mild steel tubing. Just= order=20 180s and cut up whatever it takes.
Measure for matching length with a flex hose similar to a small shop= vac.=20 Once you have what you want, then start cutting the expensive stuff.  = ;
Lynn=20 E. Hanover
--part1_a8f62.fd2d7e0.3a021261_boundary--