Return-Path: Received: from [192.55.52.30] (HELO fmsfmr003.fm.intel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 410317 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:54:37 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=192.55.52.30; envelope-from=randy.smith@intel.com Received: from petasus.fm.intel.com (petasus.fm.intel.com [10.1.192.37]) by fmsfmr003.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id i8EEqDS6025672 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:52:13 GMT Received: from fmsmsxvs043.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs043.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.129]) by petasus.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with SMTP id i8EEpOrE019179 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:51:45 GMT Received: from fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.156]) by fmsmsxvs043.fm.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004091407510419948 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:51:04 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.208]) by fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:51:04 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C49A6A.41B366B5" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] NACA vs. P51 Scoop Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:51:03 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] NACA vs. P51 Scoop Thread-Index: AcSaWjAWdnAwsZybSQWU1BWwJFJusAAD4MEg From: "Smith, Randy" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 14:51:04.0141 (UTC) FILETIME=[42383FD0:01C49A6A] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A6A.41B366B5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is precisely why I want to decide early on if I should go to the trouble to build the NACA inlet verses the P-51 style scoop. I'm leaning heavily toward the scoop as this is easier to construct and I gain some (although miniscule) room in the fuselage for something else. =20 -Randy =20 ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Perry Mick Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 8:54 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] NACA vs. P51 Scoop =20 Dale Rogers wrote: Randy, =20 You asked: =20 =20 1. I am building a Cozy MKIV. It uses an NACA scoop embedded in the belly to provide cooling air. I am thinking of not building the NACA scoop as I plan to use some sort of Meredith effect scoop/plenum (ala the P-51) for cooling. Thoughts? =20 =20 There are flyers who have successfully used each approach. For example, John Slade gets adaquate cooling=20 with a NACA scoop; and, the last time I looked, Perry Mick=20 was using a P-51 style scoop on his Ducted Fan L-EZ. =20 Dale R. COZY MkIV-R13BNA #1254 Ch's 4, 5, & 23 =20 I still have the NACA. I have no cooling problems because the ducted fan assists airflow through the rad. About a year ago I lowered the inlet lip about 1", increasing inlet area to the rad, and making sort of a scoop out of the NACA. But it had no effect. My rad cooling is sufficient, but it's limitation is probably my small rad size and not airflow. Eventually I will probably grind all that NACA stuff off the belly and use the original Long-EZ P-51-type scoop. My LEZ fuselage tub was fabricated to the original design, the NACA was added on later, unlike the Cozy, which I think has the NACA designed into the fuselage tub. Perry ------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A6A.41B366B5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This = is precisely why I want to decide early on if I should go to the trouble to build the = NACA inlet verses the P-51 style scoop.  I’m leaning heavily = toward the scoop as this is easier to construct and I gain some (although miniscule) room = in the fuselage for something else.

 

-Randy

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Perry = Mick
Sent: Tuesday, September = 14, 2004 8:54 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] NACA = vs. P51 Scoop

 

Dale Rogers wrote:

Randy,
 
   You =
asked:
 =

  
1.      I am =
building a Cozy MKIV.  It uses an NACA scoop embedded =
in
the belly =
to provide cooling air.  I am thinking of not building =
the
NACA =
scoop as I plan to use some sort of Meredith effect =
scoop/plenum
(ala the =
P-51) for cooling.  =
Thoughts?
    =

 
   There are flyers who have =
successfully used each approach.  For example, John Slade gets =
adaquate cooling 
with a =
NACA scoop; and, the last time I looked, Perry Mick =

was using =
a P-51 style scoop on his Ducted Fan =
L-EZ.
 
Dale =
R.
COZY =
MkIV-R13BNA #1254
Ch's 4, =
5, & 23
  =

I still have the NACA. I have no cooling problems because the = ducted fan assists airflow through the rad. About a year ago I lowered the = inlet lip about 1", increasing inlet area to the rad, and making sort of a = scoop out of the NACA. But it had no effect. My rad cooling is sufficient, but = it's limitation is probably my small rad size and not airflow.
Eventually I will probably grind all that NACA stuff off the belly and = use the original Long-EZ P-51-type scoop. My LEZ fuselage tub was fabricated to = the original design, the NACA was added on later, unlike the Cozy, which I = think has the NACA designed into the fuselage tub.

Perry

------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A6A.41B366B5--