Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.30; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fire extinguishers
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:19:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20050827011930.TIKV7275.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>

Hans,

   I think you missed Michael's point.

   It isn't the volume of air that's at issue, but rather 
where that air has to go.  A direct-air cooled engine needs 
the air to travel in intimate contact with the cylinder 
fins - filling the entire engine compartment.  An indirect-
air cooled system allows the airstream to be confined to a ductwork where there are no flamable liquids or gasses, 
making it far easier to isolate the engine compartment from 
sources of fresh air.

Regards,
Dale R.
    
> From: Hans Conser <conserreceipts@earthlink.net>
> Date: 2005/08/26 Fri AM 10:29:50 EDT
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fire extinguishers
> 
> 
> On Aug 26, 2005, at 12:55 AM, Michael Burke wrote:
> 
>>...
>>     The point I'm making is this. The rotary is NOT air cooled, (directly
>> anyway)therefore we can take a different approach in designing the cowl. We
>> do not need a large volume of air blasting into the cowl, because the the
>> radiators can be set up so that they are ducted from the outside seperately.
>> ...
>>
> 
> Actually liquid cooled engines need a great volume of air than air 
> cooled engines.  This is because the temperature differential (Delta T) 
> of the aircooled engine is much greater.  In other words it takes less 
> air to cool 400 degree cooling fins vs 220 degree coolant.
> 
> Hans Conser
> 
> 
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>