Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b8) with ESMTP id 323463 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:28:48 -0400 Received-SPF: error receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040716142817.YYFI10440.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:28:17 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: New Scoop Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 07:28:43 -0700 Message-ID: <000501c46b41$3292e330$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C46B06.86340B30" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C46B06.86340B30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. Tuft testing on the EZs shows the flow remaining fairly well attached until you slow to higher AOA. The you get span-wise flow flowing outward under the flow separation. You're right; what is will do to that flow separation I'll have to wait to find out. I feel quite confident that it will have no significant effect on flight characteristics. Al ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C46B06.86340B30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

 

Tuft testing = on the EZs shows the flow remaining fairly well attached until you slow to higher = AOA.  The you get span-wise flow flowing outward under the flow separation. =  You’re right; what is will do to that flow separation I’ll have to wait = to find out.

 <= /font>

I feel quite = confident that it will have no significant effect on flight = characteristics.

 <= /font>

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C46B06.86340B30--