X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 10 [X] Return-Path: Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.232] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1875203 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 21:20:54 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.162.232; envelope-from=wdleonard@gmail.com Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so305876nzi for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:20:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=tXACJLY0hCZJfQ+1Ke89Fpap6EEm3em/D/Z3a1yz1emHuTqFvwwVJybAqHvXyKkUZtAYiv2fuYdjL+7fNNzqk8tfxxCqZ5DZZcoxYDyyrQBDHv8945R1CqT4YAYAOXXly52f+2b3HgFfEllRthWXkGers7PJjCMoicgy/dnglcU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=fuZDauTye2h000BsfyrUB2rJIQ86lavSAjNv0XsfZoMaklS6I8IUBVV1sqYbw7Fb7zSKYcNiI3Lt2D4ZNseL+IIUiE9Yvpss67QKrWStiF7tBVCJwh3yt5ZulVb0vSfGx7vd2M4MLQMo6JONXbLetqKBCz89ZZvScRg5H0N4MP0= Received: by 10.114.124.1 with SMTP id w1mr152126wac.1172715600076; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:20:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.79.14 with HTTP; Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1c23473f0702281819u55e86a78j704a986123c2548e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:19:59 -0800 From: "David Leonard" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Diffuser Design Rules In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_51556_755841.1172715599951" References: ------=_Part_51556_755841.1172715599951 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Hi Ed, Pretty slides. They SEEM authoritative but who gets to write the "rules"? :-) In other words, where is the rest of the data. I completely agree that a streamline duct is better than the conventional duct, and that separation needs to be avoided. But do you have any data comparing a restricted neck style to a regular streamline duct? Dave Leonard > > > Once again, the only "creative" bit of thinking on my part was the pinched > duct in order to cope with the limitations of having a very small area for a > duct. All the rest of the credit belongs to K&W and Horner as well as few > others. > > > Ed > -- David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY My websites at: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com ------=_Part_51556_755841.1172715599951 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Hi Ed,
 
Pretty slides.  They SEEM authoritative but who gets to write the "rules"?  :-)  In other words, where is the rest of the data.  I completely agree that a streamline duct is better than the conventional duct, and that separation needs to be avoided.  But do you have any data comparing a restricted neck style to a regular streamline duct?
 
Dave Leonard
 

 
 
 
Once again, the only "creative" bit of thinking on my part was the pinched duct in order to cope with the limitations of having a very small area for a duct.  All the rest of the credit belongs to K&W and Horner as well as few others.
 
 
Ed

--
David Leonard

Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
My websites at:
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/vp4skydoc/index.html
http://leonardiniraq.blogspot.com ------=_Part_51556_755841.1172715599951--