Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <473C583C.2090208@nc.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:31:24 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Thick vs Thin was : Diffuser Configuration Comparison
References: <list-2480146@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2480146@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Tracy Crook wrote:
>
>> 3) Same air inlet with same mass flow rate
>>     
>
> This is where it starts to go badly wrong and/or misses the whole
> point.  The main object of using a thick rad is to use fewer CFM
> (lower mass flow rate).   If you want to assume same mass flow, there
> is no advantage (and probably a disadvantage) for a thick rad.
>   

STOP!!

That sums up the whole non-debate right there, and stabs the demon 
squarely in the heart.

On one side we have the idea that thin radiators offer less drag than 
thick ones, because you pass the air through it slower.  You get less 
drag, and each CFM carries off the same amount of waste energy, because 
it spends more time in the core.

On the other side we have "Yeah, you're right.  But good luck fitting 
the necessary ducts into something that looks like an airplane."

By golly, EVERYBODY IS RIGHT!!!   Woohoo!

Heh, we're getting rain here.  I think I'll turn my sprinklers on and 
see if they'll write me a ticket for it.


BTW, this discussion has been the most fun we've had on this list in 
quite a while.