Return-Path: <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3)
  with ESMTP id 2579016 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:23:43 -0400
Received: from TOSHIBAjhr ([209.214.14.143]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with SMTP
          id <20030914142342.UTES1810.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@TOSHIBAjhr>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:23:42 -0400
From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Reduce Inlet?  Was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Good news, Bad news
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:23:41 -0400
Message-ID: <NMELKLCBIAJLEHHCHLJBCECICJAA.sladerj@bellsouth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <list-2578949@logan.com>

> Based on my recent experience in reducing my raditor
> inlet ducting by 30 % (from a total of 48 in^2 to 33in^2 and cooling was
> still adequate, you might try minimizing your inlet are first.
Ed has a good point, Rusty. You could experiment with you're inlet size and
shape on the BUC, that way you might be able to build you're new cowl once
and get it right first time.