X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fmailhost02.isp.att.net ([204.127.217.102] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.6) with ESMTP id 4243724 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 01 May 2010 09:50:32 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.217.102; envelope-from=bbradburry@bellsouth.net Received: from desktop (adsl-85-113-131.mco.bellsouth.net[98.85.113.131]) by isp.att.net (frfwmhc02) with SMTP id <20100501134957H0200i2ga5e>; Sat, 1 May 2010 13:49:57 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [98.85.113.131] From: "Bill Bradburry" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Ejector cooling Date: Sat, 1 May 2010 09:49:56 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcrpIO7pPMxmTkRRTN2gGfsHOZhhlAAE/vwA X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 Marc, Could you get some drawings and put them on the list? I think a lot of folks would like to see how it would look and might try it. Bill B -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Marc de Piolenc Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2010 7:24 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Ejector cooling Mike Wills wrote the quoted passages: "1) It adds measurable weight." Compared with what? What if a small addition of weight solves your cooling problems and reduces cooling drag. Would you refuse to do it? "2) It adds complexity." How complex can a device with no moving parts be? "3) It adds noise (that alone in hindsight makes me glad I didn't do it - god knows I don't need more noise)." No. Mixer-ejectors are used for noise REDUCTION. Successfully. "4) And finally, not a single person I spoke with noticed a measurable improvement in either cooling performance or drag reduction after adding an augmentor, or noticed a measurable reduction after eliminating the augmentor." You seem to have consulted a very select group. In volume 2 of Alternative Engines, page 139 et seq, Charles Airesman Jr. documents his experiments with a very primitive ejector that generated 6 inches of water pressure drop under shop runup conditions. That equates to a considerable shaft power savings, more reliable ground cooling and a big step forward. And this was Airesman's first attempt. There are other success stories if you choose to seek them out. Best regards, Marc de Piolenc Those seem like good enough reasons to pass on an augmentor unless you are one of those guys that just has to prove it to yourself. Mike Wills -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html