Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 607441 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:59:26 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.87; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 14 Jan 2005 10:58:56 -0800 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from echristl-linux.cisco.com (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j0EIwqW0024150 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:58:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Welcome to the Club was Re: [FlyRotary] No more ACRE (for me) From: Ernest Christley To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1105729130.12865.48.camel@echristl-linux.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:58:51 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 13:22, Bob White wrote: > Here is a link to the analysis Bill Schertz did on Todd Bartram's > cooling system: http://www.acre-media.org/schertz/EWP_analysis.html > Bill's analysis would indicate that Todd's system was marginally > adequate given the assumptions used. Some were overly conservative, and > Todd has reported better results than would be expected from the > analysis. Is the 'first approximation', that the cooling air will never get hotter than the exiting water, a good one? It would seem to me that if you arranged a multipass radiator such that it entered in the rear and left at the front, the exiting air would be closer to the temperature of the radiator's hot side.