X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 12:47:31 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2034305 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 May 2007 12:20:20 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.68; envelope-from=rtitsworth@mindspring.com DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=KP0z3N02nq0O2JINMSst/2R0+ab4kts57crvdoM3BbKkyTTPjh03YQy20yQEh2LM; h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Thread-Index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; Received: from [66.167.211.12] (helo=RDTVAIO) by elasmtp-masked.atl.sa.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1HlotD-00066A-Eo for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 09 May 2007 12:19:43 -0400 From: "rtitsworth" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: IO-550 fuel injection - NACA Fuel Vents X-Original-Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:19:21 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <003f01c79255$cd680410$84affea9@RDTVAIO> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AceSTp1y4zeeRFakT3ys45NDnB91EAABQ6LA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 In-Reply-To: X-ELNK-Trace: b17f11247b2ac8f0a79dc4b33984cbaa0a9da525759e26542b444014ec3bd23bcaeee3fff31f57081ee4b264fab01f9d350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 66.167.211.12 Interesting thought in the prior post below. Any CFD/aerodynamics experts care to comment? I'm just at the point of doing my wing tips (and need to add the NACA scoop vent to one which was inadvertently left off by Lancair). I have noticed that the std setup seems to be to route the aluminum vent tube directly to the back wall of the NACA. From a novice perspective it seems like this partially undermines the NACA pressure recovery design (i.e. more like a plain old pitot tube - perhaps worse). Also many of those small NACA's don't seem to follow NACA principles (sharp edges and inverted airfoil design on the rear edge/cuff). I was thinking of making a small cavity/manifold behind/inside the NACA and them routing the vent into it. Perhaps I also need an additional pressure neutral "leak" to keep the NACA flowing??? If it works too well, is there any chance of over-pressurizing the wing tanks? I've heard anecdotal stories of the tail fresh air NACA's creating enough pressure to blow switches, lights, etc out of the overhead duct. Rick Titsworth p.s. JohnH, I certainly don't want anything on my Lancair sticking out 1.5 inches into the airsteam {wink}. -----Original Message----- From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John Huft Subject: [LML] Re: IO-550 fuel injection Here is an off-the-wall theory from the RV spy.... I am suspicious of those cute little NACA vents you guys use for tank vents. I am thinking they may not be as effective as they need to be...