Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000701c6450c$88f3f010$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1030391@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA's, Cooling and Sport Aviation Mag..
Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2006 08:05:56 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 > I suppose even with a streamline-diffuser (84% revocery of pressure).
> Question is with what pressure to you start out? Ambient? To what baseline
> to you recover the 84%?

The 84% figure was based on the amount of theoretical dynamic pressure 
recovery (1/2pV^2)  possible based on the air velocity in the air duct.  A 
lower/higher dynamic pressure would therefore effect how much pressure would 
be recovered.  High duct velocity results in more skin friction but less 
tendency for the wall boundary layer to separate - so as aways - a trade 
off.

Ed


> If the differential pressure is low enough - this obviously works fine!
> Next question: How can one calculate/computer analyze/test all different
> variations efficiently before starting to cut metal (or sticking 
> glasfibers
> together....)?
>
> On the particular plane above, also observe the rather "big radius"-nose
> compared to other "slicker look"-pointier noses of Eze siblings. The man
> says research shows his noseform is the right one until you hit 
> trans-sonic
> speeds.....
>
> Anyone knows a source for reports on the difference between NACA-low
> pressure cooling systems versus Ram pressure systems? The real interist
> thing would of course be the Drag-difference at the same cooling
> results.....
>
> Thomas J.
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>