Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com ([24.93.67.83] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1) with ESMTP id 2514776 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:48:20 -0400 Received: from nc.rr.com (cpe-024-211-183-088.nc.rr.com [24.211.183.88]) by ms-smtp-02.southeast.rr.com (8.12.5/8.12.2) with ESMTP id h782j0OE009482 for ; Thu, 7 Aug 2003 22:45:00 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F330E18.9050609@nc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 22:42:32 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling / Pressure recovery References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Tracy Crook wrote: > Here's the thing that makes it confusing. If you look only at > cooling results, Paul was right. I could have gotten equal or > better cooling improvement by using a cowl flap. BUT, this > improvement comes at the expense of added drag, especially at cruise > & top speed (racing). By improving the pressure recovery instead, I > got the improved cooling with almost no increase in cooling drag. > This is the ultimate goal in aircraft cooling design. > > Tracy Crook > How can you tell, Tracy? That is to say, is opening up the intake producing more drag than a cowl flap would? How do you measure the effects of both so that your not just guessing? -- ----Because I can---- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ ------------------------