Return-Path: Received: from corpprd-pxy2.canfor.ca ([198.162.160.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c1) with ESMTP id 722347 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 13:52:22 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.162.160.3; envelope-from=Steve.Bartrim@canfor.com Received: from canformail1.canfor.ca (canformail1.canfor.ca [199.60.193.29]) by corpprd-pxy2.canfor.ca (Build 103 8.9.3p2/NT-8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA05928 for ; Wed, 09 Feb 2005 10:51:37 -0800 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_01C50ED8.622AEEE0" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 10:51:37 -0800 Message-ID: <091A2D42FAF91A41B84750D269FC97E72B310A@canformail1.canfor.ca> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece Thread-Index: AcUOwsw1aUj7fV2ERd+5G1e30D8/WQAE/oMg From: "Bartrim, Todd" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C50ED8.622AEEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Personally, I'm not in favor of the Ellison, however this reminds me = of the debate over the EWP. There was absolutely NO WAY that it would = provide enough flow to cool the engine. Now we all know that isn't true = (except PL :-).=20 I don't remember correctly, but was Ken's advise to not use the = Ellison based on actual use? If so then maybe that provides the proof = needed and no further speculation is necessary, but if it was based on = theoretical analysis, then what we need to do is have someone with their = engine on a test bed install one with an acceptable manifold and prove = it one way or the other. I feel that even if it does work, economically it is not a viable = solution, but while most theory tells us it won't work, we should = attempt to prove it. Since there appears to be at least one already = available, lets have a volunteer with an engine :-) Todd Bartrim ------_=_NextPart_001_01C50ED8.622AEEE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ellison, the missing piece

            Personally, I'm not in favor = of the Ellison, however this reminds me of the debate over the EWP. = There was absolutely NO WAY that it would provide enough flow to cool = the engine. Now we all know that isn't true (except PL :-). =

            I don't remember correctly, = but was Ken's advise to not use the Ellison based on actual use? If so = then maybe that provides the proof needed and no further speculation is = necessary, but if it was based on theoretical analysis, then what we = need to do is have someone with their engine on a test bed install one = with an acceptable manifold and prove it one way or the = other.

            I feel that even if it does = work, economically it is not a viable solution, but while most theory = tells us it won't work, we should attempt to prove it. Since there = appears to be at least one already available, lets have a volunteer with = an engine :-)

    Todd Bartrim

------_=_NextPart_001_01C50ED8.622AEEE0--