Return-Path: Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 410741 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:15:02 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.65; envelope-from=sladerj@bellsouth.net Received: from JSLADE ([216.76.209.139]) by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20040914191127.YNWU19186.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@JSLADE> for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:11:27 -0400 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:11:26 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_008E_01C49A6D.1ACB9980" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C49A6D.1ACB9980 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 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. Nor will it have the high drag 2 more c. John ------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C49A6D.1ACB9980 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> As far as scoops are concerned, a NACA = scoop may=20 work fine if everything else is right,

> but will never have the pressure = recovery=20 efficiency of a well designed ram scoop.

Nor will it have=20 the high drag

2 more c.

John

------=_NextPart_000_008E_01C49A6D.1ACB9980--