You can quote all the technical jargon you want, but its a simple matter of the laws of physics that an engine operating at a higher rotational speed will deliver exponentially greater forces to those components.
I am referring to the laws of physics, I even gave you the references of which physics to research for goodness sakes.
Sod it, I just don't have the energy anymore, you win Cletus.
Recently I saw a posting by Dan Thomas describing the failure of the exhaust valves in a Sube conversion he built.
You mean you saw a post about someone (I don't think it was Dan himself) who removed the millions of dollars and hours researched engine control module, i.e. the computer that controls the internal cylinder temps that stops valves being burnt, and replaced it with a good ol' carby ... oh for goodness sakes .. FACEPALM.jpg
You can quote all the technical jargon you want,
Yes, yes I can, but some days I pine for your bliss.
It works, but not well (re; efficiently). You can put forward all the reasoning you want for not wanting water cooling, redrives, weight etc, but there is no excuses for those veritably bad, and not used by anybody else today, 1940's combustion chambers.Ross quote: Perhaps we should all switch back to 1960s technology?
Eki reply: Works pretty well for Lycoming and Continental...why not Corvair ?
In their defence I believe they don't want to make changes for liability reasoning, but that doesn't change they still have them.