|
Words are wrapping just fine now, Mark
I don't disagree that flushing a screen is
certainly easier than flushing a radiator - however, I would be concerned that
the degradation of the cooling capacity of the radiator would be a slow thing
whereas the screen could possibly become clogged much quicker. I guess in
my case (as well as Tracy's) we have not seen any clogging in over (300
hours in my case) 1600 hours of flying. Clearly it does happen, just makes
me wonder why it does in some cases and does not in others.
Ultrasonic cleaning of a radiator would remove
most/all scale - might be cheaper than having a new radiator made. The
service is offered by some radiator shops - but not all by any
means.
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:46
AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Filterr or not
to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Cooling system update
Ed,
The ease of cleaning
a screen over backflushing a radiator shouldn’t be overlooked. If I knew
that cleaning or replacing a filter at every oil change would keep my cooling
system free of junk, then I would gladly install a filter. Once the
barnacles start to form in the radiator, I think it is time for a new
radiator.
Do you recall the
trouble Perry Mick had with his cooling system? If I recall, he
attributed it to adding stop-leak to his system. I think it all settled
in the radiator tubes. He replaced the radiator and all was well
again.
Mark
(word wrap working on
my screen)
I am of the
opinion that an inline coolant filter is likely to get blocked sooner and more
quickly than the radiator (should you have a contamination problem). The
radiator core would likely experience a slower degradation in its cooling
capability - as Chuck Dunlap's experience indicated. Now, whether a
clogged filter could withstand the pressure head of coolant moving at 20-30
gpm or whether there would always be some flow - hard to
say.
By the way,
Mark. On my e mail browser your emails line fail to wrap, they simply
extend to the right in one LONG sentence.
|