X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from inca.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.8] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTPS id 1028971 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 09 Mar 2006 21:03:07 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.8; envelope-from=william.p.dube@noaa.gov Received: from [140.172.241.126] (mungo.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.126]) by inca.al.noaa.gov (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id k2A22NE0003295 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:02:23 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4410DD2E.7050806@noaa.gov> Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 18:58:06 -0700 From: Bill Dube Reply-To: william.p.dube@noaa.gov Organization: NOAA Aeronomy Lab User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] NACA's, Cooling and Sport Aviation Mag.. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I read that article as well. I had the same skepticism about the NACA intake for cooling. My understanding is that with an NACA inlet, you don't get the ram pressure you need to force air through a high fin-count radiator. Am I wrong about this? Bill Dube' David Staten wrote: > At the risk of invoking PL's name, anyone else read this months Sport > Aviation mag from EAA, and notice an article on cooling that seems to > indicate that NACA's are acceptable and adequate for aircraft cooling > needs? I have no idea regarding the authors credentials, and I no > longer monitor PL's "newsletter".. I was curious more than anything > else... Pauls reaction, others reactions, etc. > > Translation.. yes.. I'm stirring the pot/Trolling... I figure if we > are using NACA's on the Velocity, that makes us somewhat of a NACA > supporter.. > > Dave > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >