Received-SPF: error
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 09:35:26 -0400
From: echristley@nc.rr.com
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New Scoop
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Reply-to: echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-id: <22a1bc822a5a0d.22a5a0d22a1bc8@southeast.rr.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-disposition: inline
Priority: normal


----- Original Message -----
From: Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net>
Date: Friday, July 16, 2004 0:14 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Scoop

> 
> I really don't know yet how well it is going to
work.  Is that why 
> they call
> these "experimental aircraft"?  The only data
point we have is Alan 
> Shaw'soil cooler installation, which apparently
worked well even 
> though his
> approach to the airflow was not as; let's say,
"sophisticated" as 
> mine.
> 
> 
> Al
> 
> 

That far back on such a long airfoil, the flow will
most likely be seperated anyway.  You might find
that the added air might extend the attachment. 
Might be bad if it moves the center of lift back to
far back.  Might be great if it substantially
increases lift at high AoA so that your approach
speed can drop way down (think of it as a
bastardized slat).  I doubt that you'd be able to
get a reasonable answer to the question with
anything short of a full model test.