X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop-Diagnostic: \eX-PolluStop-Score: 0.00\eX-PolluStop: Scanned with Niversoft PolluStop 2.1 RC1, http://www.niversoft.com/pollustop Return-Path: Received: from [65.110.14.105] (HELO mail2) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c4) with ESMTP id 865069 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:28:17 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.110.14.105; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from ATP2 (unverified [65.110.14.116]) by mail2 (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.2.2) with ESMTP id for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:32:03 -0700 Message-ID: <26185.1113240560328.JavaMail.Administrator@ATP2> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 10:29:20 -0700 (PDT) From: echristley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RV10 Cowl Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: E-mailanywhere V2.0 (Windows) >On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:43:53 -0600 Jarrett & Heidi Johnson wrote. > I've actually done a >smiley face induction on a previous model [ I think I modified this current >model to the new profile] but was told that it would work better w/ a more >seperate induction with a sorta boundry layer splitter [Picture k of that >same report] I didn't totally agree with it at the time on the principle >that the boundry layer there is... 0.0001 thick or so.. [ just an >un-educated guess] It would be an easy fix to make it w/out the boundry >seperator or.. not.. which ever. You should have went with your first instinct in my opinion. Like you said, the boundary layer at that point does not exist in any measurable thickness, and your going to get increased drag from the vortices created in the intersecting surfaces.