X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.2) with ESMTP id 4104027 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:24 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF6B1737F9 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:48:48 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 87CAFBEC018 for ; Sat, 30 Jan 2010 05:48:45 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: <1B6D36713E6E47DA96D56591C60075D9@ownerf1fc517b8> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Tiff to CAD Software Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 07:48:48 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0029_01CAA180.A88673B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100129-1, 01/29/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CAA180.A88673B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thomas, I like your approach to the problem, I see nothing but positive outcomes = in proving the concept (one way or another). 3.5" is ( I believe) OK, = the thick verses thin debate is like comparing apples and oranges given = the different applications of cars and aircraft. I don't know what speed = your looking at in cruise but 3.5" should be good for a higher cruise. I = believe some have used 3" cores successfully. However I'm no expert but = I look forward to the outcomes. George ( down under) Mike, The graphic is not a true representation of the final design. It = merely depicts an unmodified P-51 scoop that has been rendered in CAD, = scaled 61% and rotated lightly in the clockwise direction. =20 My actual radiator design has a frontal area of 203 sq in and a depth = of 3.5 in.=20 =20 As stated earlier, the purpose of the post was to announce my = willingness to share a software program that I had developed and found = useful. =20 T Mann ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CAA180.A88673B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
Thomas,
I like your approach to the problem, I = see nothing=20 but positive outcomes in proving the concept (one way or another). 3.5" = is ( I=20 believe) OK, the thick verses thin debate is like comparing apples and = oranges=20 given the different applications of cars and aircraft. I don't know what = speed=20 your looking at in cruise but 3.5" should be good for a higher cruise. I = believe=20 some have used 3" cores successfully. However I'm no expert but I look = forward=20 to the outcomes.
George ( down under)

Mike,

The=20 graphic is not a true representation of the final design. It merely = depicts an=20 unmodified P-51 scoop that has been rendered in CAD, scaled 61% and = rotated=20 lightly in  the clockwise direction.

 

My=20 actual radiator design has a frontal area of 203 sq in and a depth of = 3.5 in.=20

 

As=20 stated earlier, the purpose of the post was to announce my willingness = to=20 share a software program that I had developed and found=20 useful.

 

T=20 Mann

<= /HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_0029_01CAA180.A88673B0--