Message

X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.4) with ESMTP id 1412540 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:04:29 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.72; envelope-from=rusty@radrotary.com Received: from ibm68aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060921020344.EXWX4132.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm68aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:03:44 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm68aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060921020344.KHVL14516.ibm68aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Wed, 20 Sep 2006 22:03:44 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: finned aluminum sheets? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 21:03:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c6dd22$2ad7f360$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6DCF8.42043550" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6DCF8.42043550 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks for all the links, comments, etc. I'll have to look through = these more when I get time, but a few general comments: =20 The pre-made finned aluminum heat sinks do appear to be heavy. I'm = afraid the weight of the pan will exceed the weight of an oil cooler, but if = you could eliminate the oil cooler, then it would possibly save some ducting = and mounting work. =20 =20 I like the neat pan that Paul Conner had, but wonder about the weight vs performance. I do think that fins will need to be inside and out, which = just makes the weight that much worse. On the other hand, you could use .063 material for the actual pan, then weld even thinner fins on it. It = would be pretty labor intensive, but at least my welds wouldn't have to hold oil. When it comes to AL welding, I still suck. =20 =20 The corrugated heat sink was neat, and I had already tried to figure out = a way to make that work. I do have some of the miracle brazing compound = that Ed found, and that would be perfect for joining the folded heat sink to = the inside and out of the pan. This may actually be the leading candidate = at the moment.=20 =20 Finally, the tubes through the pan idea is something I had also thought about, but... (see previous welding comment). I wouldn't personally consider doing it in epoxy, but it would be less likely to leak :-) =20 Thanks again, Rusty (my beer's empty) =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6DCF8.42043550 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Thanks for all = the links,=20 comments, etc. I'll have to look through these more when I get = time, but a=20 few general comments:

The pre-made = finned=20 aluminum heat sinks do appear to be heavy. I'm afraid the = weight of=20 the pan will exceed the weight of an oil cooler, but if you could = eliminate the=20 oil cooler, then it would possibly save some ducting and mounting=20 work.

I like = the neat pan=20 that Paul Conner had, but wonder about the weight=20 vs performance. I do think that fins will need to be inside = and out,=20 which just makes the weight that much worse. On the other hand, = you could=20 use .063 material for the actual pan, then weld even thinner fins on = it. =20 It would be pretty labor intensive, but at least my welds wouldn't have = to hold=20 oil. When it comes to AL welding, I still=20 suck.

The corrugated heat=20 sink was neat, and I had already tried to figure out a way to make that=20 work. I do have some of the miracle brazing compound that Ed = found,=20 and that would be perfect for joining the folded heat sink to the inside = and out=20 of the pan. This may actually be the leading candidate at the = moment.

Finally, the = tubes through=20 the pan idea is something I had also thought about, but... (see previous = welding=20 comment). I wouldn't personally consider doing it in epoxy, but it = would=20 be less likely to leak :-)

Thanks=20 again,

Rusty (my = beer's=20 empty)

=20

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6DCF8.42043550--