Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.198.35] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2790712 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:14:34 -0500 Received: from rv8 (12-225-206-211.client.attbi.com[12.225.206.211]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <2003120606143301300mvapfe>; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 06:14:33 +0000 Message-ID: <1daf01c3bbc0$091bd600$d3cee10c@rv8> From: "kevin lane" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: spray bars Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 22:13:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 in all this discussion about thick cores, since I am building a p-51 style 5" core myself for my -8, I wondered how effective a water spray bar would be for the few minutes of critical climbout airspeeds. how effective is a spray bar? it seems stupid to have a larger radiator to handle a very small portion of the flight. would that much water need to be carried for a typical flight? Kevin Lane Portland, OR e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net web-> http://home.comcast.net/~n3773 (browse w/ internet explorer) ----- Original Message -----