Return-Path: <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Received: from front3.chartermi.net ([24.213.60.109] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6)
  with ESMTP id 2712226 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:26:10 -0500
Received: from [24.231.184.247] (HELO eric)
  by front3.chartermi.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.6)
  with SMTP id 417504175 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 06 Nov 2003 07:26:10 -0500
Message-ID: <006001c3a461$e73885d0$0202a8c0@eric>
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2711670@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: DIE Summary
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 07:31:29 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165



> Ah, from the complex to the pure and simple.
>
<snip>
>     Now the only thing that does not appeal to me is we generally like
cool
> denser air rather than heated air for the intake.  But, hey! the concept
> certainly has simplicity on its side. I think there is some rule of thumb
> that tells you how much power you loose for each 10F raise in intake temp,
> but I can't recall what it is.  So if the loss in power due to the heated
> air is minor compared to the potential DIE power, the concept might be a
> winner.
>

Thumb says 1% for 10 degrees. 2% if it's a turbo.  I am not sure but  I
think thumb was refering to degrees Celcius.