Porting 6port For Airplane
06-21-2005, 03:28 PM
#11
Super Moderator
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 2,763
[quote name='banzaitoyota' date='Jun 21 2005, 03:51 PM']The Pineapple insert did not fail: THE INSTALLATION FAILED
[/quote]
out of all the people to defend pineapple....
[snapback]728295[/snapback]
[/quote]
out of all the people to defend pineapple....
06-21-2005, 06:09 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,502
The installation of the pineapple insert into a stock sleeve, not the installation of the user installing the sleeve
Look at us we installed stuff into STOCK SLEEVES instead of machining new sleeves entirely so it's all one piece
Look at us we installed stuff into STOCK SLEEVES instead of machining new sleeves entirely so it's all one piece
06-21-2005, 06:38 PM
#14
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: My BIG ol TURBO-DIESEL
Posts: 5,181
[quote name='ColinRX7' date='Jun 21 2005, 06:09 PM']The installation of the pineapple insert into a stock sleeve, not the installation of the user installing the sleeve
Look at us we installed stuff into STOCK SLEEVES instead of machining new sleeves entirely so it's all one piece
[/quote]
ehhh?
Look at us we installed stuff into STOCK SLEEVES instead of machining new sleeves entirely so it's all one piece
[snapback]728355[/snapback]
[/quote]
ehhh?
06-21-2005, 11:55 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 1,345
i was one of the first people to get the pineapple sleeves. back then they required you to send in your core and then they would fit the inserts in them so they would already come ready to be put in the engine. with no further instructions from pineapple i never even gave it a second thought to put them into my newly rebuilt engine, as all of you forum people love pineapple so much and gave them great feedback (for unknow reasons to me). as later thru the years i find it to be otherwise and people are STILL defending pineapple, i just dont understand. i called pineapple back about this issue and even called and warned ito not to install these into his customers cars since i knew he mentioned that he liked the desing last time i was at his shop. he was also kinda shocked to hear this. i then called pineapple and couldnt get a hold of rob, the only people i could speak to were his helpers at the shop, and everytime i wanted to speak with rob they said he wasnt around. after many attempts i never called back again.
i guess now people are well aware of the inserts not staying in very well and take extra measures to secure them. there should have been some r&d done at pineapple to prove the product worthy before selling it.
i guess now people are well aware of the inserts not staying in very well and take extra measures to secure them. there should have been some r&d done at pineapple to prove the product worthy before selling it.
06-22-2005, 12:06 AM
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: CT
Posts: 1,345
[quote name='diabolical1' date='Jun 21 2005, 12:14 PM']kahren ~
i'm having a bit of trouble visualizing what you said here. could you please explain it for a simpler mind.
[/quote]
bad pic, but you shoudl get the point.
what i was tryign to say is leave it as two separete ports at the rotor like it is stock. and if you made a custom intake manifold where the secondary port and aux port are one runner on the intake manifold then u can knife edge it at the intake manifold side to have it flow better then just hitting a wall. as the first pic indicates.
do not make it a single port at the rotor such as the second pic shows.
it just doesnt work well.
i'm having a bit of trouble visualizing what you said here. could you please explain it for a simpler mind.
[snapback]728209[/snapback]
[/quote]
bad pic, but you shoudl get the point.
what i was tryign to say is leave it as two separete ports at the rotor like it is stock. and if you made a custom intake manifold where the secondary port and aux port are one runner on the intake manifold then u can knife edge it at the intake manifold side to have it flow better then just hitting a wall. as the first pic indicates.
do not make it a single port at the rotor such as the second pic shows.
it just doesnt work well.
06-23-2005, 11:56 AM
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 158
[quote name='Syonyk' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:42 PM']You also probably want to consider the shape of the auxiliary intake ports. With the 6 port sleeves removed, there's a nice long cylinder for the air to flow down, with a solid wall at the end, and an opening about halfway down the side. Smoothing that out (similar to what the Pineapple inserts do with the stock 6 port sleeves) will help power up at the high end.
-=Russ=-
[/quote]
A piece of teflon rod hammered into the port then smoothed for better airflow works good. www.mcmaster.com has the rod. Another alternative is using Devcon to build up a ramp to smooth the transition.
-=Russ=-
[snapback]728057[/snapback]
[/quote]
A piece of teflon rod hammered into the port then smoothed for better airflow works good. www.mcmaster.com has the rod. Another alternative is using Devcon to build up a ramp to smooth the transition.
06-23-2005, 01:52 PM
#20
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 5
"do not make it a single port at the rotor such as the second pic shows.
it just doesnt work well."
Thanks for the pic. My next question was going to be how to join up the side, but I see you brought the two circles into a bastardized elipse. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it doesn't work well?
To give back some of the education I'm getting, and in way of explaing my situation. The typical propeller on a small airplane is limited to somewhere around 2700 RPM. The limiting factor is you want to keep the prop tip from going supersonic (around 650-700mph, give or take), and for a given RPM the longer the prop the faster the tip will go. You want to run the biggest propeller possible without it hitting the ground in order to get the maximum thrust. I have a 3.17 gearbox reduction. So that will allow me to run up to 8500RPM for takeoff. I'd run that level for a maximum of around 10min, then would back off to around 6000RPM for cruise.
The other interesting twist is the 'how do I get there from here' problem. You can't get to 8500RPM if the engine can't push the prop through 4000RPM. Power aborbed by the prop is a cubic relationship. The prop absorbs 1/8th the power at 1/2 the RPM.
So I revisit my original question. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it doesn't work well?
it just doesnt work well."
Thanks for the pic. My next question was going to be how to join up the side, but I see you brought the two circles into a bastardized elipse. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it doesn't work well?
To give back some of the education I'm getting, and in way of explaing my situation. The typical propeller on a small airplane is limited to somewhere around 2700 RPM. The limiting factor is you want to keep the prop tip from going supersonic (around 650-700mph, give or take), and for a given RPM the longer the prop the faster the tip will go. You want to run the biggest propeller possible without it hitting the ground in order to get the maximum thrust. I have a 3.17 gearbox reduction. So that will allow me to run up to 8500RPM for takeoff. I'd run that level for a maximum of around 10min, then would back off to around 6000RPM for cruise.
The other interesting twist is the 'how do I get there from here' problem. You can't get to 8500RPM if the engine can't push the prop through 4000RPM. Power aborbed by the prop is a cubic relationship. The prop absorbs 1/8th the power at 1/2 the RPM.
So I revisit my original question. Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say it doesn't work well?