X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [64.129.170.194] (HELO VIRCOM1.fcdata.private) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4953597 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 17:16:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.129.170.194; envelope-from=cbarber@texasattorney.net Received: from FCD-MAIL06.FCDATA.PRIVATE ([fe80::697f:d6aa:b87:78d8]) by FCD-MAIL06.FCDATA.PRIVATE ([fe80::697f:d6aa:b87:78d8%17]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:14:52 -0500 From: Chris Barber To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new(2009) intake manifold Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new(2009) intake manifold Thread-Index: AQHMAGeNyEnk+YJ6BUesPSbTR1wrM5Ro0Mc0 Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:14:52 +0000 Message-ID: <2D41F9BF3B5F9842B164AF93214F3D3065A5EAC1@FCD-MAIL06.FCDATA.PRIVATE> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [166.139.76.11] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D41F9BF3B5F9842B164AF93214F3D3065A5EAC1FCDMAIL06FCDATA_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_2D41F9BF3B5F9842B164AF93214F3D3065A5EAC1FCDMAIL06FCDATA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I very much like the Mistral intake, however, that being said, there are so= me issues with clearances. The one that caused me the most problems was th= e injector rail and how it sticks straight out the side. If it were not fo= r this I would have probably been able to use a standard aftermarket turbo = manifold, but the injectors/fuel rail interfered. This resulted in a custo= m turbo manifold being made. FWIW. Chris ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of = H & J Johnson [hjjohnson@sasktel.net] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:53 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my new(200= 9) intake manifold Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it was intended= to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a close fitting 'over = the top' manifold which would be usable for either pusher or tractor installs, however it wou= ld be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. It would take alot of 'study= ' and prep work to get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would need to be= hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This is 'doable' but the= added cost of getting all those parts together and into a working unit, would push the cost up pa= st the 'reasonable' level. At least as far as i can tell from a your pictur= e. Of course I could be seeing more complexity there than actually exists. However, that being said I'm op= en to all options and suggestions on how it could be made to work! :) Best regards Jarrett Johnson www.innovention-tech.com --_000_2D41F9BF3B5F9842B164AF93214F3D3065A5EAC1FCDMAIL06FCDATA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I very much like the Mistral intake, however, that being said, there are= some issues with clearances. The one that caused me the most  problem= s was the injector rail and how it sticks straight out the side= .  If it were not for this I would have probably been able to use a standard aftermarket turbo manifold, but the injectors/= fuel rail interfered.  This resulted in a custom turbo manifold being = made.

 

FWIW.

 

Chris

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary= @lancaironline.net] on behalf of H & J Johnson [hjjohnson@sasktel.net]<= br> Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:53 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Improved performance of my = new(2009) intake manifold

Bill that is a pretty wild looking manifold! I can see that it was inten= ded to benifit from DIE? I've been leaning more towards a close fitting 'ov= er the top' manifold

which would be usable for either pusher or tractor installs, however it = would be somewhat simpler than the pictured unit. It would take alot of 'st= udy' and prep work to

get a cast unit in that configuration. More than likely it would need to= be hand fab'd and welded [same as what is pictured]. This is 'doable' but = the added cost of getting

all those parts together and into a working unit, would push the cost up= past the 'reasonable' level. At least as far as i can tell from a your pic= ture.  Of course I could be seeing

more complexity there than actually exists. However, that being said I'm= open to all options and suggestions on how it could be made to work! :)

 

Best regards

Jarrett Johnson
www.innovention-tech.com

--_000_2D41F9BF3B5F9842B164AF93214F3D3065A5EAC1FCDMAIL06FCDATA_--