X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <rwstracy@gmail.com>
Received: from [64.233.170.190] (HELO rn-out-0102.google.com)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1)
  with ESMTP id 2496902 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:45:48 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.170.190; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com
Received: by rn-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id e13so1208969rng
        for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:45:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        bh=GJLCsEqBV4JVA8g2QT/Xa2DErVnjGddrWag3ERHSQJM=;
        b=WM8AFSMNO6h1t4lOwN9agM5QWhuVId/bC46tovoXW0p+MVSRugzF4wGOc3bMojPzn4+/I7tS5Qw8WRbGOVA1xtUKfM/r6rUJ1VBBrA/8OUXaMyMjOB/JS0k1zFpoO2hIdMggqPhd6sVQE1M+5dt3FzEe6K/c0vlkw2v9CnfNE2U=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth;
        b=fCvO1gC5NOHTunKS1D63G6ZfePsMsSJ8JhKbT85M+rtirFAtG3yhndwCh0gePEmDinMnON6L0uCcKavLpbaW/6zmkMbI33yzQSyoc1lWIkZqzwlUjMjm2xGRliCA9yTKAC88t1jkvLSQw1ZGNwBziC0B3jV5Z70g5zSZcM+b+14=
Received: by 10.142.240.9 with SMTP id n9mr853409wfh.1195526710890;
        Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.98.2 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1b4b137c0711191845m7eae2968v6451419c95e09f1@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 21:45:10 -0500
From: "Tracy Crook" <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
Sender: rwstracy@gmail.com
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] heat exchanger placement
In-Reply-To: <list-2490551@logan.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_19615_15483400.1195526710928"
References: <list-2490551@logan.com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: b248d2e698923826

------=_Part_19615_15483400.1195526710928
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Why stop with the radiator?  Move the oil cooler there as well to make this
approach worth all the effort.  And there will be a lot of effort : )

Tracy

On Nov 15, 2007 7:55 PM, Andrew Martin <andrew@martinag.com.au> wrote:

> Hi
> Following on from this thin vs thick radiator discussion. What's the
> general consensus on placement of the heat exchanger/s? Seems to me the
> most efficient WW11 planes had the exchangers mounted under the wing or
> fuselage but nearly everyone here is placing them under the cowl, is the
> reason for this just because its an easier installation to make, or is
> it no less efficient at our power/speed.
> My aim is to minimize total drag even if it means a longer build time to
> get the installation correct, current thoughts are to place a short
> thick coolant exchanger under the fuselage and have a clean tight
> fitting cowl with only inlets for induction and oil heat exchanger,
> hopefully there will be enough air going through the oil exchanger to
> keep under cowl temps reasonable.
> Am I just plane crazy?
> Regards Andrew Martin.
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>

------=_Part_19615_15483400.1195526710928
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

<div>Why stop with the radiator?&nbsp; Move the oil cooler there as well to make this approach worth all the effort.&nbsp; And there will be a lot of effort : )&nbsp;&nbsp; </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Tracy<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 15, 2007 7:55 PM, Andrew Martin &lt;<a href="mailto:andrew@martinag.com.au">andrew@martinag.com.au</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Hi<br>Following on from this thin vs thick radiator discussion. What&#39;s the<br>general consensus on placement of the heat exchanger/s? Seems to me the
<br>most efficient WW11 planes had the exchangers mounted under the wing or<br>fuselage but nearly everyone here is placing them under the cowl, is the<br>reason for this just because its an easier installation to make, or is
<br>it no less efficient at our power/speed.<br>My aim is to minimize total drag even if it means a longer build time to<br>get the installation correct, current thoughts are to place a short<br>thick coolant exchanger under the fuselage and have a clean tight
<br>fitting cowl with only inlets for induction and oil heat exchanger,<br>hopefully there will be enough air going through the oil exchanger to<br>keep under cowl temps reasonable.<br>Am I just plane crazy?<br>Regards Andrew Martin.
<br><font color="#888888"><br><br><br>--<br>Homepage: &nbsp;<a href="http://www.flyrotary.com/" target="_blank">http://www.flyrotary.com/</a><br>Archive and UnSub: &nbsp; <a href="http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html" target="_blank">
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html</a><br></font></blockquote></div><br>

------=_Part_19615_15483400.1195526710928--