X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.16] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2503724 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 00:32:05 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.62.16; envelope-from=techwelding@comcast.net Received: from OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.44]) by QMTA01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GtRF1Y0030xGWP80500L00; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:31:26 +0000 Received: from dell ([69.139.116.211]) by OMTA12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id GtXR1Y0034ZkCtR0300000; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 05:31:26 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=7hjwIXGMUuXAIsfUcLsA:9 a=emEzaUNGGqK3FVppHmEA:7 a=beWaQiGvHes558H1_LUUnUNbAaIA:4 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=ftFGBYpk1mUA:10 a=9OHTkwyHC8cA:10 a=X4RIGgksEU1JnRh6B7gA:9 a=RcZEo--DeAo6wWIxZEsA:7 a=jiXswR6nq_eyMO8QudFJ9gHUEMEA:4 a=iVkDmfvjeKcA:10 a=AfD3MYMu9mQA:10 Message-ID: <000801c82f24$55800300$d3748b45@dell> From: "Ed Klepeis" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: what are they Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 23:30:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C82EF2.0AA52EA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C82EF2.0AA52EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear Tracy I'm with you what are these special flat plate rads. I have = built many systems but haven't come across these flat plate rads. I will = stand corrected if someone comes up with something. I think what = everyone is talking about is a flat plate cooler that is put in the = bottom tank on rads to cool trans fluid. I think fluidyne is using them = as oil to water oil coolers. I looked into that but didn't like the = sealing system they used around the oil inlet/outlet good enough for = cars but not safe for aircraft. If anyone has anything to add to this I = would be happy to hear about it. = Regards = Ed Klepeis ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tracy Crook=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:39 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Naca Report on Radiator Thickness OK Steve, I'll bite. Do pusher airplane builders hang their rads out = in the breeze? Do radiator companies make special flat plate style = radiators for them? What am I missing? =20 Tracy On Nov 24, 2007 1:05 PM, Steve Brooks wrote: Tracy, Maybe not relevant for an RV, but pretty relevant if you are = cooling a pusher. Steve Brooks -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net ]On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:53 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Naca Report on Radiator Thickness This NACA paper discussion is interesting but has almost nothing = to do with our installations using standard automotive rads rather than = the flat plate rads in the paper. Radiator frontal area is almost = irrelavant in our installations because they are totally enclosed within = a streamlined body. Too bad, because if frontal area was a significant = factor, it would end the argument about thick vs thin :-) The thin rad = would look terrible in this respect.=20 Keep everything in perspective! Note that the NACA paper indicates that the rads we use (tube & = fin type) have no application in aircraft. If that were true it would = mean all our discussions and work on installations so far have been a = total waste of time! =20 Tracy (should be working on RV-8) On Nov 21, 2007 9:20 PM, Ron Springer = wrote: Well, engineering judgement tells me that your drag increase is still too low. Now I'll just have to prove=20 it by looking at that report, or elsewhere. Sounds like a good project for the long holiday weekend, or I could just work on my Cozy ... it will be a tough call! Ron --- Ed Anderson wrote: > > Ok, Ron, I went back and looked at the drag aspects > again. It looks like > the calculation was accurate, however, I think this > will put it into a > better perspective than before. > > The frontal drag at 120 mph for the 1 square foot > radiator (using just the > frontal area - no drag coefficient) was > > 37.63 lbf/ft^2, the "internal skin" drag of the 4" > thick radiator was 6.7 > lbf/ft^2. The skin drag for the 1" thick rad was=20 > 4.28 lbf/ft^2. So > comparing the 6.7 with the 4.28 was where I came up > with the 58% increase in > skin drag. > > However, adding the frontal and skin drag factors > for the "total" drag, I=20 > get 37.62 lbf/ft^2 + 4.28 lbf/ft^2 =3D 40.98 lbf/ft^2 > total drag for the 1" > rad. For the 4" rad 37.62 + 6.7 =3D 44.32 lbf/ft^2, > so based on that it > appears that the total drag was increased by=20 > 41.90/44.32 =3D 5.5% more total > drag for the 4" radiator than for the 1" radiator. > It might be a tad bit > less than that due to the 5% decrease in mass flow > on the frontal area of > the thicker rad. > > At least that is the way it appears to me. > > Ed > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C82EF2.0AA52EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Tracy
        I'm with=20 you what are these special flat plate rads. I have built many systems = but=20 haven't come across these flat plate rads. I will stand corrected = if=20 someone comes up with something. I think what everyone is talking about = is a=20 flat plate cooler that is put in the bottom tank on rads to cool trans = fluid. I=20 think fluidyne is using them as oil to water oil coolers. I looked into = that but=20 didn't like the sealing system they used around the oil inlet/outlet = good enough=20 for cars but not safe for aircraft. If anyone has anything to add to = this I=20 would be happy to hear about it.
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =          =20 Regards
          &nbs= p;            = ;            =             &= nbsp;           &n= bsp;           &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =      =20 Ed Klepeis
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tracy=20 Crook
Sent: Saturday, November 24, = 2007 9:39=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Naca = Report on=20 Radiator Thickness

OK Steve, I'll bite.  Do pusher airplane builders hang = their=20 rads out in the breeze?  Do radiator companies make special flat = plate=20 style radiators for them?    What am I missing?  =
 
Tracy

On Nov 24, 2007 1:05 PM, Steve Brooks <cozy4pilot@gmail.com> = wrote:
Tracy,
 Maybe = not relevant=20 for an RV, but pretty relevant if you are cooling a=20 pusher.
 
Steve=20 Brooks
 
-----Original=20 Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net ]On Behalf Of = Tracy=20 Crook
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 11:53 = AM
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Naca = Report=20 on Radiator Thickness

This NACA paper discussion is interesting but has almost = nothing to=20 do with our installations using standard automotive rads rather = than the=20 flat plate rads in the paper.   Radiator frontal area is = almost=20 irrelavant in our installations because they are totally enclosed = within a=20 streamlined body.  Too bad, because if frontal area was a = significant=20 factor, it would end the argument about thick vs thin :-)  = The thin=20 rad would look terrible in this respect.
 
Keep everything in perspective!
 
Note that the NACA paper indicates that the rads we use (tube = &=20 fin type) have no application in aircraft.  If that were true = it=20 would mean all our discussions and work on installations so far = have been=20 a total waste of time! 
 
Tracy (should be working on RV-8)

On Nov 21, 2007 9:20 PM, Ron Springer = <ron2369@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Well,=20 engineering judgement tells me that your drag
increase is = still too=20 low. Now I'll just have to prove
it by looking at that = report, or=20 elsewhere.
Sounds like a good project for the long=20 holiday
weekend, or I could just work on my Cozy ... it = will
be a=20 tough call!

Ron

--- Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>=20 wrote:

>
>  Ok, Ron, I went back and = looked=20 at the drag aspects
> again.  It looks like
> = the=20 calculation was accurate, however, I think this
> will put = it into=20 a
> better perspective than before.
>
> The = frontal=20 drag at 120 mph for the 1 square foot
> radiator (using = just=20 the
> frontal area - no drag coefficient) = was
>
>=20 37.63 lbf/ft^2,  the "internal skin" drag of the 4"
> = thick=20 radiator was 6.7
> lbf/ft^2.  The skin drag for the = 1" thick=20 rad was
> 4.28 lbf/ft^2.  So
> comparing the = 6.7 with=20 the 4.28 was where I came up
> with the 58% increase = in
>=20 skin drag.
>
>  However, adding  the = frontal and=20 skin drag factors
> for the "total" drag, I
> get = 37.62=20 lbf/ft^2 + 4.28 lbf/ft^2 =3D 40.98 lbf/ft^2
> total drag = for the=20 1"
> rad. For the 4" rad  37.62 + 6.7 =3D 44.32=20 lbf/ft^2,
> so based on that it
> appears that the = total=20 drag was increased by
> 41.90/44.32 =3D 5.5% more = total
>=20 drag for the 4" radiator than for the 1" radiator.
> It = might be a=20 tad bit
> less than that due to the 5% decrease in mass = flow
> on the frontal area of
> the thicker=20 rad.
>
> At least that is the way it appears to=20 me.
>
> Ed
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive = and=20 UnSub:
>
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l
>


--
Homepage:=20  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and = UnSub:  =20 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.htm= l


------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C82EF2.0AA52EA0--