Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:15:53 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2091902@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <daveleonard@cox.net>
Received: from fed1mtao08.cox.net ([68.6.19.123] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b2)
  with ESMTP id 2091555 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:44:47 -0500
Received: from smtp.west.cox.net ([172.18.180.52]) by fed1mtao08.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with SMTP
          id <20030329014441.QXCQ29278.fed1mtao08.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:44:41 -0500
From: <daveleonard@cox.net>
X-Original-To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Thick vs Thin
X-Original-Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 20:44:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Message-Id: <20030329014441.QXCQ29278.fed1mtao08.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>


> I'm sure this debate will not be settled until we can have a side by side
> comparison of the two approaches with all other factors being the same.  You
> guys with the thin rads hurry up and finish your planes so we can have a
> "fly-off"!
> 
> Tracy Crook
> 
Ok then, I'm turning off the computer and heading out to the hangar :-)

Dave Leonard