Return-Path: Received: from mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.198] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP-TLS id 741946 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:58:14 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.198; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d220-236-17-176.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.236.17.176]) by mail17.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.12.11/8.12.11) with SMTP id j1GLvPSg021877 for ; Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:57:27 +1100 Message-ID: <002501c51472$d3a6abf0$b011ecdc@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Big Butterflies vs Runners , was: Bruce Turrentine Intake Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:59:44 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C514C6.A49E6010" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C514C6.A49E6010 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Tom, No clash is OK, although I do have to careful with some words though. I was just searching for some words to explain it better, but I had a = few beers and that's the best I could do at the time, on reflection, I'm = sure you understood. George Thanks George,=20 Clash isn't a bad word over there is it. Reviewing Bob's pic of the = base underside, they don't merge into 1 at the base as I thought.=20 Tom=20 George Lendich wrote: Tom, It's the port opening waves that clash in the runner that makes a 2 = into 1 not work so well. I was of the same opinion as yourself until it = was explained to me. Sorry about the terminology - blame the beers! George (down under) -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term' ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C514C6.A49E6010 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tom,

No clash is OK, although I do have to = careful with=20 some words though.

I was just searching for = some words to explain=20 it better, but I had a few beers and that's the best I could do at = the=20 time, on reflection, I'm sure you understood.

George

Thanks George,

Clash isn't a bad word over there is it. Reviewing = Bob's pic=20 of the base underside, they don't merge into 1 at the base as I = thought.=20

Tom

George Lendich <lendich@optusnet.com.au>=20 wrote:

Tom,

It's the port opening waves that = clash in the=20 runner that makes a 2 into 1 not work so=20 well. I was of the same opinion as yourself until it was = explained to=20 me.

Sorry about the terminology - blame = the=20 beers!

George (down=20 under)

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib=20 Jab's 'Second Term' ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C514C6.A49E6010--