Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 764694 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:13:33 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-185-127.carolina.rr.com [24.74.185.127]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id j21HChCi028563 for ; Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:12:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c51e81$e9fc07b0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Filterr or not to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Cooling system update Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 12:12:57 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C51E58.00EF3840" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C51E58.00EF3840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I stick a small "Inspection mirror" up through the AN-16 fitting with a = small light shinning on the mirror. (I think next time I will wire a = small LED to the head of the mirror - would make it much easier) I = then run the mirror up and down the side tank and rotate it at intervals = looking mainly at the condition of the small 1/8-1/4" dia cross tank = tubes. I look for blockage or any indication of scale/gunk. Thus far I = have found none. =20 I am not certain but in thinking about it I wonder whether the tank = orientation as well as entry/exit points used could make a difference. = Both my entrance and exit ports are on the bottom leave no good place = in the side tanks for sediment/gunk to settle. If a person used a top = entry exit, I would think it would be more likely to trap sediment on = the bottom. Just speculation on my part of course. Ed A ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark R Steitle=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 10:16 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Filterr or not to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: = Cooling system update Ed, Sounds like a rational plan. So, how do you go about "inspecting" = your evaporator cores for blockage? =20 =20 Mark S. =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 8:54 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Filterr or not to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: = Cooling system update =20 I agree, trying to fix the problem that isn't there can be = frustrating in the extreme. In Perry's case, I certainly understand = the use of the "Radiator Stop-Leak" if you are out and need to get home = as an "emergency" measure, but on the other hand I don't think a screen = would necessarily have made any difference in his case. Once you put = something like that in your system then you have compromised it to a = degree. =20 But, then that is what this is all about - some perceive risks where = others do not and hence take a step to alleviate said risk. However, I = can see some folks using a screen and never having a problem (just like = some of us flying have not (at least thus far) had a problem with gunk = in the coolant system) and others using a screen and perhaps getting = flow restriction or stoppage and others (who inspect regularly) showing = where a screen has perhaps stopped gunk from flowing into the radiator.. =20 My personal viewpoint is to minimize the number of components, but = will readily admit to have screens and filters in my fuel line - so = perhaps the having same in the coolant lines is no different (at least = in concept). {:>) =20 Ed A ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C51E58.00EF3840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I stick a small "Inspection = mirror" up=20  through the AN-16 fitting with a small light shinning on the=20 mirror. (I think next time I will wire a small LED to the head of = the=20 mirror - would make it much easier)   I then run the mirror up = and=20 down the side tank and rotate it at intervals looking mainly at the = condition of=20 the small 1/8-1/4" dia cross tank tubes.  I look for blockage or = any=20 indication of scale/gunk.  Thus far I have found none.  =
 
I am not certain but in thinking about = it I wonder=20 whether the tank orientation as well as entry/exit points used could = make a=20 difference.  Both my entrance and exit ports are on the = bottom  leave=20 no good place in the side tanks for sediment/gunk to settle.  If a = person=20 used a top entry exit, I would think it would be more likely to trap = sediment on=20 the bottom.  Just speculation on my part of course.
 
Ed A
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark R Steitle =
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 = 10:16=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Filterr or not=20 to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Cooling system update

Ed,

Sounds like = a=20 rational plan.  So, how do you go about =93inspecting=94 your = evaporator=20 cores for blockage? 

 

Mark=20 S.

 

From: = Rotary motors=20 in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed = Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 = 8:54=20 AM
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary]=20 Re: Filterr or not to Filter: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: Cooling system=20 update

 

 I agree,=20 trying to fix the problem that isn't there can be frustrating in the=20 extreme.   In Perry's case, I certainly understand the use = of the=20 "Radiator Stop-Leak" if you are out and need to get home as an = "emergency"=20 measure, but on the other hand I don't think a screen would = necessarily have=20 made any difference in his case.  Once you put something like = that in=20 your system then you have compromised it to a = degree.

 

But, = then that=20 is what this is all about - some perceive risks where others do not = and hence=20 take a step to alleviate said risk.  However, I can see some = folks using=20 a screen and never having a problem (just like some of us flying have = not (at=20 least thus far) had a problem with gunk in the coolant system) and = others=20 using a screen and perhaps getting flow restriction or stoppage and = others=20 (who inspect regularly) showing where a screen has perhaps stopped = gunk from=20 flowing into the radiator..

 

My = personal=20 viewpoint is to minimize the number of components, but will readily = admit to=20 have screens and filters in my fuel line - so perhaps the having same = in the=20 coolant lines is no different (at least in concept).=20 {:>)

 

Ed=20 A

= ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C51E58.00EF3840--