Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #11429
From: Smith, Randy <randy.smith@intel.com>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:06:23 -0700
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

 

 


From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:46 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop

 

I'd say forget the intermittent firing mode.  For the same power it would likely result in just as much,+ or - , as reduced throttle; and shake the hell out of everything connected to the engine.  As I understand it, the Cadillac mode is an attempt to improve mileage at low load; maybe 15 - 20% power or less.

 

Would it shake?  (Why do I feel like a lamb, dumb before the shearer? :-) )  Ok the Cadillac mode attempts to improve mileage.  Is 15-20% power sufficient (or perhaps slightly more with extra oil cooling capacity built in) to keep flying?  I think I just found a use for the 12A engine I have been given.

 

If you are going to try to design against coolant loss; you may just as well try to design against loss of oil, about the same probability of occurrence.

 

You have a point there.  Oil gone, I go until the engine seizes.  Hopefully I can ditch near a passing ship or have enough time to radio a mayday or two (thousand).  Same as with a certified engine as well.  This needs more thought.

 

As far as scoops are concerned, a NACA scoop may work fine if everything else is right, but will never have the pressure recovery efficiency of a well designed ram scoop.

 

More evidence for the scoop side of the argument.

 

That'll be 2 cents, please J

 

I’ll be at the Rough River fly-in.  See me there.  J

 

Al

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