Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-1028972@logan.com>
References: <list-1028972@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <6D98A621-2F1F-45BA-8186-1599E7A2DCCD@bellsouth.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA's, Cooling and Sport Aviation Mag..
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2006 21:07:59 -0500
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

You are right Bill. David did not read the whole article. Or he  
didn't want to hear it? :)
Buly


On Mar 9, 2006, at 8:58 PM, Bill Dube wrote:

> 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/
>>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/