X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from eastrmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.240.59] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4103630 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:13:09 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.59; envelope-from=tmann@n200lz.com Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100129171233.IBAK18765.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:12:33 -0500 Received: from testPC ([70.184.217.221]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id bVCY1d00C4nBe7202VCYK9; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:12:33 -0500 X-VR-Score: 0.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=m2uZYReVMtEBXOgN9RrTi2vXgbAT6Rl4nLxplK8f7tE= c=1 sm=1 a=WUKWvh78jHwA:10 a=gg+spYMGC3HMAXU8AuUugQ==:17 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=O70x7WEOyJvYBglQk94A:9 a=MZbXyFUPcvFHEgxPBtgA:7 a=iysLMUUfhCb_SJ-Ug6ycdoHsHX4A:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=tFlulz9RavpXtww0O70A:9 a=UWC_xcvlWSqKmnO7gOUA:7 a=s5ArENrC9C0yI8yYklWe3gn5kksA:4 a=gg+spYMGC3HMAXU8AuUugQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Thomas Mann" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Tiff to CAD Software Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:12:29 -0600 Message-ID: <003501caa106$3cbf5bd0$b63e1370$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0036_01CAA0D3.F224EBD0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 thread-index: Acqg/r01J8oh0U1ORdmMoZ30hXJGdAAAXR3g Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01CAA0D3.F224EBD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Monty, I get the impression that you think this is about 'P-51 envy' or something. For starters, the P-51 style scoop is part of the original plans. That's per Burt. I have seen where many have opted for the NACA style scoop but the more I look into it the more sense the original plans method makes to me. The sizing-to-hp has already been calculated to the best of my ability using the available resources. That is a part of the equation that can be applied to any approach and is an important foundation. The biggest issue I have centers around a good diffuser and cooling exhaust arrangement. To this point, I have heard all sorts of theories and various 'bar napkin' graphics but the original P-51 drawings are the only source I have found for a professionally engineered and proven product. That said, I feel most comfortable pursuing this approach as a solution for my project. Because the drawings have been converted to CAD, the calculations can be performed in a more accurate fashion and the design altered prior to printing templates. I'll have more on that later. The biggest difference in my approach vs. what others have done in the past is that I am documenting everything as I go and will make that documentation as well as the CAD drawings available for others to analyze as a possible approach. Another advantage of reviewing the P-51 drawings is that it has altered my approach to implementing the design. I anticipate the scoop being composed of three segment. A front section starting just forward of the oil cooler and the portion aft of that point being divided into a top and bottom section. By building it this way, I can rebuild various configurations of the air inlet and swap them out with very little down time. One of the big differences in my project vs. other canard aircraft is the fact that I have an area behind the rear seat (hell hole) that is available to me. I can actually tuck part of my radiator into this area and avoid at least some of the projection of the scoop as it relates to the profile. As is the case with the original P-51 design, the exhaust doors for both the radiator and the oil cooler are in-flight adjustable. All that said, there comes a point where the research stops and production begins. I would be very surprised if this turns out to be a hit on the first shot, but it should be very close. T Mann From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of MONTY ROBERTS Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:18 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Tiff to CAD Software Thomas, Not trying to rain on your parade, but why do you think that something designed to cool a 1500 hp WW2 fighter at speeds over 300 mph and then scaled to fit in your airframe is what you need for your application? You should calculate what your particular situation needs and go from there. The math is not that hard, in fact I think Ed has a spreadsheet he would probably be willing to share if you asked nicely. I think he would even run some numbers for you. If you want to make it look like the P51 installation fine, but size all the radiators, inlets and exits for your speed, altitude and power levels. Then draw the P51 like scoop around that and see if it still fits. 1.) determine how much HP you plan to make continuously. 2.) figure out how much heat will be rejected at that HP. 3.) figure out how fast your airplane will go with that much HP. 4.) size inlet and exit accordingly. 5.) Check over range of altitudes repeat step 4 and 5. 6.) look at hot day takeoff and climb. size max exit opening for that. 7.) compare your results to the other flying examples closest to your application for a sanity check 8.) If you are the outlier you better understand why or start over I would look very closely at what Al G has done as well as others successfully flying canard aircraft with rotaries. They have much more in common with your application than the P51. Monty ------=_NextPart_000_0036_01CAA0D3.F224EBD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Monty,

I get the impression that you think this is about = ‘P-51 envy’ or something.

 

For starters, the P-51 style scoop is part of the = original plans. That’s per Burt. I have seen where many have opted for the = NACA style scoop but the more I look into it the more sense the original = plans method makes to me.

 

The sizing-to-hp has already been calculated to the best = of my ability using the available resources. That is a part of the equation = that can be applied to any approach and is an important = foundation.

 

The biggest issue I have centers around a good diffuser = and cooling exhaust arrangement. To this point, I have heard all sorts of theories = and various ‘bar napkin’ graphics but the original P-51 drawings = are the only source I have found for a professionally engineered and proven product. That said, I feel most comfortable pursuing this approach =  as a solution for my project. Because the drawings have been converted to = CAD, the calculations can be performed in a more accurate fashion and the design = altered prior to printing templates. I’ll have more on that = later.

 

The biggest difference in my approach vs. what others = have done in the past is that I am documenting everything as I go and will make = that documentation as well as the CAD drawings available for others to analyze as a = possible approach.

 

Another advantage of reviewing the P-51 drawings is that = it has altered my approach to implementing  the design. I anticipate the = scoop being composed of three segment.

A front section starting just forward of the oil cooler = and the portion aft of that point being divided into a top and bottom = section. 

 

By building it this way, I can rebuild various = configurations of the air inlet and swap them out with very little down time. =

 

One of the big differences in my project vs. other canard aircraft is the fact that I have an area behind the rear seat (hell = hole) that is available to me. I can actually tuck part of my radiator into this = area and avoid at least some of the projection of the scoop as it relates to the profile.

 

As is the case with the original P-51 design, the exhaust = doors for both the radiator and the oil cooler are in-flight adjustable. =  

 

All that said, there comes a point where the research = stops and production begins. I would be very surprised if this turns out to be a = hit on the first shot, but it should be very close.

 

T Mann

 

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of MONTY = ROBERTS
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 10:18 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Tiff to CAD = Software

 

Thomas,

 

Not trying to rain on your parade, but why do you think that something = designed to cool a 1500 hp WW2 fighter at speeds over 300 mph and then scaled to fit = in your airframe is what you need for your = application?

 

You shou= ld calculate what your particular situation needs and go from there. = The math is not that hard, in fact I think Ed has a spreadsheet he would probably = be willing to share if you asked nicely. I think he would even run some numbers for = you. If you want to make it look like the P51 installation fine, but size all = the radiators, inlets and exits for your speed, altitude and power levels. Then draw the P51 like scoop around that and see if it still = fits.

 

1.) determine how much HP you plan to make = continuously.

2.) figure out how much heat will be rejected at that = HP.

3.) figure out how fast your airplane will go with that much = HP.

4.) size inlet and exit accordingly.

5.) Check over range of altitudes repeat step 4 and 5.

6.) look at hot day takeoff and climb. size max exit opening for = that.

7.) compare your results to the other flying examples closest to your = application for a sanity check

8.) If you are the outlier you better understand why or start = over

 

I would look very closely at what Al G has done as well as others = successfully flying canard aircraft with rotaries. They have much more in common with = your application than the P51.

 

Monty<= o:p>

 

------=_NextPart_000_0036_01CAA0D3.F224EBD0--