Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <001801c52448$749b30a0$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-776095@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tangential muffler
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:36:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Well, Bill, based on your comments,  it certainly sounds like the VAM
concept did not get a fair test.  You are correct, based on the invalid
results at Tracy's I think most folks did lose interest - I know I did.  Be
good to see it get a fair test at some point.

Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: <WRJJRS@aol.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:24 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Tangential muffler


> Ed,
>  The VAM concept run at Tracy's did have a cool tube inside, which was
supposed to terminate in the tailpipe and create a annulus to help draw the
cooling air through. In the desire to run the muffler they, (I'm not exactly
sure who), removed the tailpipe to get the muffler to fit on Tracy's test
stand. I'm sure the thing was loud as hell that way since it allowed a
direct path from the ports to the exit, which totally screwed the idea of
muffling at all. I've got a original drawing of the idea which I'll
contribute to anybody who wants to try it. The tangential on the pusher as
shown would be perfect for the idea. I also have an idea for a tractor
config which would work much better if someones interested. After the run at
Tracy's (which was wrong and didn't prove anything) everyone lost interest
in the idea which was understandable under the circumstances.
> Bill Jepson
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>