Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.70; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43566E40.9010507@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:03:12 -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: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA scoops
References: <list-773465@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-773465@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ed Anderson wrote:

> Hi Thomas, afraid not exactly an old wives tale.   Here is an extract 
> from an  old NACA report that appears to take the position that 
> submerged (NACA?) ducts are not the best suited for radiators or 
> anything requiring much diffusion or pressure recovery. 
> Unfortunately,  I don't have the full report but the report number is 
> listed on the summary below if you wish to try and find it.   Any 
> extract can be misinterpreted taken out of the context of the total 
> report - but, it seems to take a position.  


That appears to be the one, Ed.  Funny, though.  You're clip puts the 
quote at the top of page 19, but it is on the bottom of page 18 at 
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/reports/1945/naca-acr-5i20/ ...go figure.


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