Return-Path: <pjmick@viclink.com>
Received: from mail.viclink.com ([66.129.220.6] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b9)
  with ESMTP id 2475437 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 15 Jul 2003 00:34:45 -0400
Received: from viclink.com (p102.AS1.viclink.com [66.129.192.102])
	by mail.viclink.com (8.11.7/8.11.7) with ESMTP id h6F4Yet22890
	for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:34:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3F138452.8000004@viclink.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 21:34:26 -0700
From: Perry Mick <pjmick@viclink.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Failure Report from Chuck Dunlap
References: <list-2474479@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030217) (mail.viclink.com)

Ed Anderson wrote:

> 
>
>
>Also, not certain that a turbo sized for a two rotor exhaust flow would get
>sufficient exhaust mass flow from only one rotor to produce boost.  Guess
>its something Rusty can check out for us.
>
>Ed Anderson
>
>
>  
>
Ed, this was my experience in the turbo car. When the rear rotor went, 
there was no turbo action.

-- 
Perry Mick