pics of custom intake boxes
11-03-05, 05:53 PM
#101
Originally Posted by Makenzie71
And what exactly did you do to help this situation? FYI, these threads are great...I'm almost 100% posative everyone to go through this has learned something beneficial.
11-03-05, 10:01 PM
#102
Originally Posted by Makenzie71
Not exactly...there are several commercial and millitary aircraft that do not draw air directly from in front of the engine...most are single engine/narrow fuselage aircraft but it's still used effectively. Not the best design, admittedly, but it's not "horrifically inefficient".
And what exactly did you do to help this situation? FYI, these threads are great...I'm almost 100% posative everyone to go through this has learned something beneficial.
And what exactly did you do to help this situation? FYI, these threads are great...I'm almost 100% posative everyone to go through this has learned something beneficial.
Better put, it would seem that this would be done out of necessity, not efficiency in design.
Regardless, I do agree that the argumentative substance does have merit and worth. I harbor no ill will toward Makenzie, no matter how wrong he might be.
I can't hate you guys and your little spinny doritos. 
11-03-05, 10:20 PM
#103
...94% correct.
AV8 series' Harriers and A4 series' Skyhawks, as examples (but not really good ones), both require a little manuevering of the ducting to feed the engine because the cockpit/nose is right infront of the impeller. The Boeing 1011 is a good example of "interesting" duct-work (an obvious afterthought in appearance...concept 1011A didn't have a third engine).
With smaller craft I think it has to do with cramming as powerful an engine as possible into as compact a chassis...or fuselage or whatever...as possible.
With smaller craft I think it has to do with cramming as powerful an engine as possible into as compact a chassis...or fuselage or whatever...as possible.
11-04-05, 12:28 AM
#105
I'm a boost creep...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 15,608
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Tech Greek, you should drop the topic of jet engines, because you're obviously way outta your depth and/or smoking something dodgy. Plus they're totally irrelevant to car intake systems like I already said.
Mak71, Lockheed made the L-1011, not Boeing.
All the aircraft named still have forward-facing intakes for the engines, even if some have some ducting involved. I challenge anyone to name a jet-powered fixed-wing aircraft that doesn't.
Mak71, Lockheed made the L-1011, not Boeing.
All the aircraft named still have forward-facing intakes for the engines, even if some have some ducting involved. I challenge anyone to name a jet-powered fixed-wing aircraft that doesn't.
Last edited by NZConvertible; 11-04-05 at 12:34 AM.
11-04-05, 12:33 AM
#106
...94% correct.
Originally Posted by NZConvertible
Mak71, Lockheed made the L-1011, not Boeing.
