Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2009 15:56:55 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-3474861@logan.com>
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID;
  b=pmqxaKlCm9hYT0HuZeJ964glepY6HMY/RwkyQ5Q+kdzcVEUttcHpz7H2ys/6WH3B2x7bOk+rjozYF05bfb4HKvhUS9+RVjI+tQIXSNmIvIaY8GERqqC3dwbyxGdgpZ3qItQUhV6blV+TQPZ/C3ARbl9buBt0PdP45y0wwGQ6U0s=;
From: Charlie Kohler <charliekohler@yahoo.com>
Subject: Scoop
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brent writes
" You have the double whammy of cowling drag to cool the intercooler and tu=
rbo plus the belly scoop. One IV I know of that added a belly scoop for an =
air conditioner condenser lost better that 10 Kts. That whole "P-51 scope a=
dded thrust" story is a myth, IMHO."

This "one IV" must have had the early scoop that was much lower into the ai=
r stream than the current models.  Wind tunnel tests with models resulted i=
n this modification to the scoop.  I believe this was done in the year 2000=
/2001. How to tell?? A measurement from the center of the fuselage to the a=
pex of the upper lip of the air-conditioning scoop should be 1 1/8th" for t=
he newer model.

In my IV I compared data with the earlier prop tests that I did for MT and =
found that it was approximately 3kt loss at an average from 1000 foot cruis=
e up to 20,000 feet.

I agree with Brent that the scoop probably does not /and never did, add any=
 boost-- however I do believe that it can clean up the exhaust and it's tur=
bulence along the belly.


Charlie K.  See=A0me on the Web at=A0 www.Lancair-IV.com