Exactly, Al.  That was my only point.  (I'm reading these e-mails in reverse
chrono order tonight after having been gone all day . . . .)

Hey, Al, looks like your comments when replyng to these e-mails is single
spaced OK -  but the part you quote to comment on comes out double spaced.
Wonder why that is? I edited to single space below.  Anyone else see that,
or is it my system?

David

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 1:34 PM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: radiator
>
>
> >
> <quote from David's e-mail by Al: >
> >  Just a comment on one of the "assumptions" we all start with when
> discussing estimation of cooling system sizes for hot weather:  How much
hp
> is being developed, i.e., how much heat is to be rejected?
> >    - I wonder if everyone is "assuming" that they must calculate
radiator
> areas based on heat being generated/to be rejected while generating 100%
> power, i.e., 160 or up to 180-205 for a n/a rotary, depending on what you
> think you will be getting?
> >         --  My point is this:  At a 90 or 100 degree F day, at full
> throttle, sea level, std day pressure (29.92), you won't be generating
> > 100% power - because, you are sucking in hot ambient air through the
> inductionsystem (lower density than standard) and, without looking up the
> equations for normalizing measured performance to "std day", I guess we'll
> be generating only 90% of the 160 or so hp.
>
> Al replied:
> > That's true.  That is one of the considerations built into my assumption
> > of designing to 80% of full power on a hot day.  The other thing is, it
> > would probably very fortuitous if your actual performance fell within
> > +-10%, or even +-20% of your design point anyway.
>
> > Al