… now would be a good time to write something about the radial angles of the A-transfers.
Surely a duct with a radial angle of over 20° offers a smaller cross-section to the flow than a duct that enters the cylinder perpendicularly?
Yes it does. But there are two good reasons to angle it upward anyway.
First, perpendicular mixture streams coming from the A-ports would collide and slow one another right down. The upward angles provide for less velocity losses and less
pressure losses, so despite their smaller cross-section, upward ports may flow as much, if not more, than perpendicular ports.
Attachment 256232
(Now you may well ask why the B-ports do not get the same treatment; that is because the central scavenging column, resulting from all incoming scavenging streams together, must not have too much radial velocity, or the loop scavenging will result in a loop-loss into the exhaust).
Second, there is a thing called scavenging balance (I invented the word for my personal use, so this may well be the first time you ever saw it).
If you looked closely at the scavenging picture of the MB-cylinder I posted earlier today, you may have noticed that the 'radial scavenging directional resultant'
had a value of 101,045°.
90° would have meant 'straight up'; more than 90° indicates that the central scavenging column is leaning towards the exhaust side of the cylinder.
But we don't want that; it is bad for the scavenging of the rear part of the cylinder, and it is risky because it may provoke scavenging losses straight into the exhaust.
Attachment 256230 Attachment 256235 Attachment 256231
But how can we prevent a scavenging column from toppling over to the exhaust side like the leaning tower of Pisa? Not by pushing against its basis, but by pushing higher up. Hence the radial angle of the A-ports. The pictures will tell the story. (If only the Pisa architect had known a bit more about two-stroke tuning....)
Bookmarks