Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 18:13:01 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2081569@logan.com>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
References: <list-2081473@logan.com>
Subject: Attn: Ernest  Re: [FlyRotary] Re: weird cooling ideas, part 1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


 That is my biggest worry about the whole thing, Ed.  I could possibly
> use two, plumbed in parallel (I have plenty of space for that), or I may
> just have to scrap the whole idea.  Basically, though, I'm working off
> th idea that a thinner radiator with a larger surface area will have an
> efficiency advantage and require less radiator volume for the same
> amount of cooling.
>
> Unfortunately, I have a lot of time to work on this part of the project.
>
> (Wishing I could fly to Sun-N-Fun THIS year)
>
>

Say Ernest,  read the recent report by Todd on the Ford Evaporator cores.
It appears from his coolant flow tests that the Ford evaporator core
actually flow more coolant than the GM cores he tested.  This is in contrast
to the results of the article in Contact! I mentioned earlier.  Therefore,
my cautioning folks about not using Ford cores based on that article appears
to be in error.  Just wanted you to know.

Ed Anderson