Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.70; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4356994B.8070002@nc.rr.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:06:51 -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-773680@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-773680@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jim Sower wrote:

> I would surmise that a good downdraft setup buys you back more drag 
> than it costs by enabling you to do important things with the lower 
> cowl and get more/cleaner air to the prop disc.

All those compromises flying together, bumping into each other, creating 
all sorts of havoc 8*)

It's been my supposition that the hallmark of a truly interesting game 
is that each move has multiple consequences.  I find most computer games 
mind numbingly dull (shoot the enemy, grab the token, repeat ad 
infitum); whereas, I'll hurt my brain with chess where a game will hinge 
on a seemingly innocent move.  Airplane optimization is chess on 
steroids, and the only statement that will stand the test of time is, 
"You need more money!" 8*)

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