Return-Path: Received: from relay03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2576735 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 00:07:46 -0400 Received: (qmail 25641 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2003 04:07:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([65.73.33.245]) (envelope-sender ) by relay03.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 12 Sep 2003 04:07:45 -0000 Message-ID: <3F6138EA.A640E03@frontiernet.net> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 23:09:30 -0400 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: turbo wastegate requirements References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <... it is the adiabatic heat of compression that heats the air ...> Quite true <... whether you use the boost first, last, or in the middle doesn't seem to matter in my mind ...> If you boost last (as in your climb, gradually and after WOT falls below 30 in Hg), you're compressing progressively cooler air. The higher you go, the more boost, but the cooler the ambient air. I don't anticipate totally eliminating the need for intercooling, but I think my scheme will very substantially reduce it. And that is very important to me, what with all the other heat rejection issues I will have. Just a theory ... Jim S. William wrote: > With respect to the need for intercoolers, bear in mind that it is the > adiabatic heat of compression that heats the air, so the more boost, the > more heat. whether you use the boost first,last, or in the middle doesn't > seem to matter in my mind, the heat of compression will be the same. > Bill Schertz