Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 09:25:30 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2083581@logan.com>
Reply-To: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
References: <list-2081962@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] there may be some method to Tracy's madness :-)
Organization: Real World Solutions Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "kevin lane" <n3773@attbi.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 1:19 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] there may be some method to Tracy's madness :-)


> check this report out.  it may make you wonder if Tracy is actually on to
> something when he recommends the thicker radiators.  there is no date on
the
> report, but it appears to have been written quite some time ago. I only
wish
> the drawings were better.  it points out how auto radiators are lousy for
> aircraft because of the higher air speeds. kevin
> "Properties of Special Types of Radiators"
> http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1921/naca-report-86/index.cgi?page09.gif

I'd like to use this as amunition for my thick rad argument but after wading
through most of it, it is apparent that the report is for radiators cooled
by "free stream air".  In other words, radiators hung out in the breeze,
which was the norm in 1921 when the report was written.

But, here in 2003 when using diffusion (either external or internal) to
increase the pressure on the face of the rad, I still think thick rads are
the best for aircraft use!

Tracy Crook