Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net
From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil cooler inlet
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:13:42 -0800
Message-ID: <000001c7c978$23764340$6400a8c0@BigAl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <list-2185533@logan.com>

> Ernest; since you were first to propose the internal airflow, or vane; =

> what would you think is the appropriate shape, position, etc

There's still not enough data to put hard numbers on it. For that, we'd=20
need to know exactly where the separation occurs (somewhere around point =

1) and how thick the boundary layer is at point 2. The way I like to=20
think of it is that you have tired air at point 1, and it just gives up=20
trying to make the turn. The air below point 2 is still strong, so blow=20
some of it into the area at that point. But, if you pull to much of the=20
strong air, then the air at C will be to tired to make the turn. It's a=20
balancing act.=20

The line with the slight curve is what I would try first, with the=20
emphasis on 'first'. You may be completely ecstatic with the first=20
attempt and not care to experiment further.=20
----------
Ernest;

My concern about the diverter as you have it shown is that it is trying =
to
compress the air and speed it up.  It seems to me that any convergence =
there
would choke the flow of the already low energy air - you think?

I was thinking of making the vanes with fiberglass; and glassing them =
in.
But you're right; an adjustable vane would be the way to go, but it does
complicate life.  Without taking the wing off and removing the cooler, I
have to work in through the scoop opening.  The scoop has two vertical
divider/supports meaning I need three separate vanes.  I'll figure out a =
way
to attach to those.

Al