Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=142.165.20.162; envelope-from=hjjohnson@sasktel.net
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 21:43:53 -0600
From: Jarrett & Heidi Johnson <hjjohnson@sasktel.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RV10 Cowl
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message-id: <02a601c53e48$ae7ad4a0$d0f0a3ce@jarretpb17surw>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <list-863713@logan.com>

Hey there Ernest, Thanks for the link to that PDF, I've actually read that a 
while ago and then forgot about it. I've only just glanced at it quickly and 
didn't pick out anything in Picture A that show'd much of a difference 
except the smiley face intake as well as the bluff body cowl exits are 
slightly different. Is this what you are refering to? [or maybe I'm dense 
and am missing something else alot more significant]  I've actually done a 
smiley face induction on a previous model [ I think I modified this current 
model to the new profile] but was told that it would work better w/ a more 
seperate induction with a sorta boundry layer splitter [Picture k of that 
same report]  I didn't totally agree with it at the time on the principle 
that the boundry layer there is... 0.0001 thick or so.. [ just an 
un-educated guess]  It would be an easy fix to make it w/out the boundry 
seperator or.. not.. which ever. I've also gone for a more streamlined cowl 
exit which transitions from the front of the cowl to its exit point, making 
it alot less blunt compared to their picture A.

As always I'm open to suggestions.

Jarrett Johnson


>
> Those are pretty, Jarrett, but I would like to refer you to
>
> http://www.cafefoundation.org/aprs/localflow2.pdf
>
> I think you find Picture A very interesting.