Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #16989
From: Tracy Crook <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Heating the Fuel
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:04:05 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
 

>
>The problem with boiling the fuel is that most of it will then escape out
>the vent before it can re-condense.  I'm sure this will more than offset
>any fuel gains from drag-free cooling.  Even moderately raising the temp
>(and vapor pressure) will probably cause excessive evaporative loss of the
>fuel.  We have to face the fact the fuel is not an acceptable coolant for
>this application.  That's OK, there is still Evans or water and the rest
>of the wing surface to be used.
>

         Look up "heat pipe" using Google.

         The returned vapor will quickly condense in the cool tank. The
only way it will not condense is if the tank, and it's entire contents,
reach the boiling point of the fuel.

         Until the entire tank and the fuel in it warm up to the boiling
point, all of the vapor will condense on the walls and on the surface of
the fuel in the tank. As long as most of the vapors are condensing, the
fuel properties will not change.

         This is why you need to monitor the fuel tank temperature if you
are planning to use the fuel as coolant. If you dump too much heat into the
tank, it will become warm enough to vaporize the fuel. You probably would
not want the tank to become much hotter than, say, 140 F, I would guess.
Bill Dube

Good reference on the heat pipe Bill.  The 140 Deg figure is about what my seat of the pants guess was.   I figured 120 as a safe margin.   If my instrumentation and methodology was good during my test (must repeat it to be sure) then there is a possibility "fuel cooling" will be useful. 
 
The basic numbers so far:
 
 I got 2 degrees of oil cooling with something like 20 - 30 GPH of fuel flow through heat exchanger.
 
 Temperature rise in the tank was on the order of .1 degrees (lets say it was .2 for sake of argument)
 
We need about 40 degrees of oil cooling, about 20 times what I got in the experiment.  Also means we need 20x the fuel flow or about 500 GPH (8 1/3 GPM).
 
Assuming this means a temp rise in the tank of 20 x .2  or 4 degrees, that implies that there is a huge margin of safety here.   And this was only using one of the two tanks.  If it was required, I'd be happy to utilize both tanks.
 
I will be the first to admit that this sounds too good to be true.  I must repeat the experiment to verify the basic numbers.
 
Tracy
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster