Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au
Message-ID: <44ED1E38721D4CEEA83E76A36A3B6788@ownerf1fc517b8>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@aanet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-4095636@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Wedge/Oblique Duct
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2010 10:10:25 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ernest,
You are most probably right, but I'm trying to think how the pros might do 
it on paper, before committing to a physical design.

How might a Aeronautical Engineers tackle a problem like this - there are 
most probably some simple formulas, perhaps.
George ( down under)

> George Lendich wrote:
>>  Ed,
>> I have been thinking about this, if I use A1V1=A2V2 to solve for the 
>> inlet opening size, how do I know if the speed of air through the duct is 
>> correct i.e. 10% for cruise and 30% for climb.
>>  Also If I use the Cessna 171 speed of approx 100 K for cruise = 10 K 
>> through core, 70 knot climb and approx 20 K through core. Do I then use 
>> the climb speed to calculate inlet air openings and attach an adjustable 
>> louver exit OR I suppose I could do as Tracy does and calculate for 
>> cruise and attach a spray bar.
>>  I'm still a little confused on the best approach.
>> George ( down under)
> George, maybe the problem is that there isn't a "best approach".  There's 
> "not worth a cuss";  and there's "good enough".  There might even be a 
> "works pretty dang good".  Everybody wants bragging rights to having 
> landed the perfect solution on first flight, with the difference between 
> perfect and "get it in the air" being a few fpm in climb and a handful of 
> kts at cruise.
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>