spitfires
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Re: 1600 cc

To: <OHFASTONE@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Re: 1600 cc
From: "Graham Stretch" <technical@iwnet.screaming.net>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 16:34:06 +0100
Hi Michael
Don't forget the area where the wall is thinnest has two cylinders one on
each side therefore the material removed is 2x0.045" =0.090 therefore the
wall thickness is reduced to approx 0.090.
Graham.

----- Original Message -----
From: <OHFASTONE@aol.com>
To: <trunnell@mindspring.com>; <owner-spitfires@autox.team.net>;
<spitfires@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 1:43 AM
Subject: Re: Re: 1600 cc


>
>
> In a message dated 5/13/0 3:18:40 PM, trunnell@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> <<I'm a little late to comment on this as it looks like this string has
all
> but died.  I measured a spare block tonight and it looks to me that at
> their thinnest the cylinder walls are about .185 thick.  If you overbored
> all the cylinders .090 you would end up with cylinder walls about .090
plus
> or minus thick and about 1600 cc. >>
>
> I agree with the concern about overheating, but with one correction.  If
the
> walls measure .185 at their thinnest and you overbore .090, that only
removes
> .045 off of the wall thickness (you can't remove material off of one side)
> which would leave you with a thickness of .140 +/- the acceptable
variations.
>
>         Michael


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>