Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #11415
From: Smith, Randy <randy.smith@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] NACA vs. P51 Scoop
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 07:51:03 -0700
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

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

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster