Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.72; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43565291.5070705@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:05:05 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: NACA scoops
References: <list-773085@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-773085@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

rijakits wrote:

>
>     Remember the inventors of the NACA-duct did recommend to NOT use
>     it as a pressure-recovery intake (what we need for our our car
>     style radiators)
>
I've heard this repeated so many times, and yet I've never been able to 
find the report that said it.  I believe it is well on its way to 
becoming an old-wives-tale.  I've looked for a while in vain to find the 
exact quote this morning, but the closest I've been able to find was 
more along the lines of "we didn't test that, so we don't recommend it."

"We don't recommend it, because we haven't tested it" is NOT the same 
as, "we don't recommend it because we found it doesn't work."

All of the reports are online at naca.larc.nasa.gov.  That address 
starts you at the search page.  'submerged inlet' brings up the reports 
on NACA scoops, with the most germaine for our purposes being located 
at  http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1951/naca-tn-2323/ .  I'll keep 
looking for the quote I'm referring to above, but I would really 
appreciate a pointer to the report that says, "We found submerged inlets 
to be deficient for use with radiators."

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |