Return-Path: Received: from out005.verizon.net ([206.46.170.143] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2840027 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:57:21 -0500 Received: from netzero.net ([4.7.49.37]) by out005.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20031206165720.MOV16040.out005.verizon.net@netzero.net> for ; Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:57:20 -0600 Message-ID: <3FD20A6F.50004@netzero.net> Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 11:57:19 -0500 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] spray bars References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030700030801040006070900" X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out005.verizon.net from [4.7.49.37] at Sat, 6 Dec 2003 10:57:20 -0600 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030700030801040006070900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even though (or maybe because) Paul Lamar rididucled the idea, there might just be a lot of merit to this idea. Lower (cooling) drag in cruise should result in lower fuel burn. Water is cheaper than fuel. If routinely flying longer distances you'll be spending a lot more time in cruise that in climb. Evaporating water is very effective in removing heat. And of course that's the way the 1903 Wright Flyer engine was cooled! Finn kevin lane wrote: >in all this discussion about thick cores, since I am building a p-51 style >5" core myself for my -8, I wondered how effective a water spray bar would >be for the few minutes of critical climbout airspeeds. how effective is a >spray bar? it seems stupid to have a larger radiator to handle a very small >portion of the flight. would that much water need to be carried for a >typical flight? >Kevin Lane Portland, OR >e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net >web-> http://home.comcast.net/~n3773 >(browse w/ internet explorer) >----- Original Message ----- > > > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html >>> >>> > > > > --------------030700030801040006070900 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Even though (or maybe because) Paul Lamar rididucled the idea, there might just be a lot of merit to this idea.

Lower (cooling) drag in cruise should result in lower fuel burn.
Water is cheaper than fuel.
If routinely flying longer distances you'll be spending a lot more time in cruise that in climb.
Evaporating water is very effective in removing heat.
And of course that's the way the 1903 Wright Flyer engine was cooled!

Finn

kevin lane wrote:

in all this discussion about thick cores, since I am building a p-51 style
5" core myself for my -8, I wondered how effective a water spray bar would
be for the few minutes of critical climbout airspeeds.  how effective is a
spray bar?  it seems stupid to have a larger radiator to handle a very small
portion of the flight.  would that much water need to be carried for a
typical flight?
Kevin Lane  Portland, OR
e-mail-> n3773@comcast.net
web-> http://home.comcast.net/~n3773
(browse w/ internet explorer)
----- Original Message -----

 Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
 Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html

--------------030700030801040006070900--