X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 987432 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 12:58:22 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.64; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm56aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050607165737.OYIK13767.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm56aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:57:37 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm56aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050607165736.THWQ11957.ibm56aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:57:36 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Two Engines In One? Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2005 11:57:37 -0500 Message-ID: <004c01c56b82$024cb830$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004D_01C56B58.1976B030" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C56B58.1976B030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Still - is there a big performance hit for doing something like this? =20 =20 If you can get all the systems to play nice with each other, there = shouldn't be any performance hit as far as I can see. =20 =20 As interesting as the idea is, I don't think there's much to be gained. = You could just as easily come up with a way to have two systems that run the whole engine, and you wouldn't have to worry about the single rotor condition unless something in the engine broke, which ain't very likely. = =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty =20 ------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C56B58.1976B030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Still – = is there a big=20 performance hit for doing something like this?

 

 

If you can get = all the=20 systems to play nice with each other, there shouldn't be any=20 performance hit as far as I can=20 see.  

 

As interesting = as the idea=20 is, I don't think there's much to be gained.  You could = just as=20 easily come up with a way to have two systems that run = the whole=20 engine, and you wouldn't have to worry about the single rotor = condition=20 unless something in the engine broke, which ain't very=20 likely.  

 

Cheers,

Rusty

 

------=_NextPart_000_004D_01C56B58.1976B030--