Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000301c54e6f$c31cd430$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-921218@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Inserts
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 13:03:56 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 >
> I love it when a plan comes together. I got Ed to show me previously 
> unseen hard data on how effective the splitters are at noise reduction. 
> :-) Now I need to know how much hp is really lost. In order to determine 
> that, I need 1st to know how the difference *using the same exhaust 
> system*. Then I need to know how much is lost in the extra 'muffling' 
> needed to reduce the clean ported system by 8 dB. Then I need to know how 
> much weight is added by the extra 'muffling'. Then how much drag is added 
> by the extra muffling hanging out in the airstream.  I think Tracy said 
> that his current belly mounted muffler is costing somewhere between 3-5 
> mph. Looking at the cube function of airspeed/hp, how many hp does it take 
> to recover 5 mph at 200 mph? Can I arrive at the same net performance with 
> a smaller in-cowl muffler & some careful heat shielding?
>
> BTW, Bill's right about the name & design details (expanded pipe around 
> the cone) of Anti-reversion cones. Again, a plan comes together as I 
> learned more new stuff. I knew the design details but wasn't aware of Jim 
> Fueling. Thanks, Bill.
>
> Sometimes dumb questions (or statements) yield some pretty intelligent 
> thoughts & useful data. Onward, through the fog...
>
> Charlie
>


Actually, I had shown it previously, Charlie.  No secret data here {:>). 
However, now that I've got you jump-started
you're going to have to do the rest yourself!

Ed