Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.72; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43594B7D.7010407@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:11:41 -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-775855@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-775855@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kelly Troyer wrote:

> Inlet lip will not protrude enough to use as step
> if I follow NACA report 743 (subject to change if I need to modify lip 
> from 743 shapes).


Kelly, I think that to get the most from this report, you'll need to use 
something like Javafoil to compare the transition and seperation points 
of the NACA 23017 (which was used in the report) against the Delta's.  
I've got those if you're interested.  What I think is particulary 
interesting to see is comparing the configurations where the efficiency 
jumps off the charts to where the natural transition and seperation 
points occur on the wing sections.

Thomas, I don't think there is anything in report 743 that would speak 
AGAINST the use of submerged inlets or streamlined ducts.  It's more a 
study of where and how large to configure the openings.  Some discussion 
is given to the size of the inlet radius, but that would also be 
instructive to radiusing the lip of a NACA duct.


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