X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from securemail.ever-tek.com ([64.129.170.194] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3875265 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:32:35 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.129.170.194; envelope-from=cbarber1@texasattorney.net Received: from fcd-mail05.FCDATA.PRIVATE ([172.16.5.24]) by FCD-MAIL03.FCDATA.PRIVATE with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:32:03 -0500 Received: from fcd-mail05.FCDATA.PRIVATE ([4.4.5.9]) by fcd-mail05.FCDATA.PRIVATE ([4.4.5.9]) with mapi; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:31:55 -0500 From: Chris Barber To: Rotary motors in aircraft Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 13:31:54 -0500 Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Seepage, no more. Oil system Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: Seepage, no more. Oil system Thread-Index: AcpFzpERfej2HwKvSmW6rEvbCMazsQAGgqw0 Message-ID: <6A3D27B02C7348499A682286EDB23105020C37A863@fcd-mail05.FCDATA.PRIVATE> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6A3D27B02C7348499A682286EDB23105020C37A863fcdmail05FCDA_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Return-Path: cbarber1@texasattorney.net X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Oct 2009 18:32:03.0338 (UTC) FILETIME=[224966A0:01CA45EA] --_000_6A3D27B02C7348499A682286EDB23105020C37A863fcdmail05FCDA_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Al, Yes, the aluminum lines run down the left duct to in front of the canard bu= lkhead, so no lines are actually in the cabin. I do not have an additional= oil cooler plumbed in the engine compartment I do know the system was plumbed in series, however, my ignorance prevents = me from knowing why re-plumbing them in parallel would change things. Does= plumbing in parallel prevent the front cooler from being a restriction poi= nt since oil can flow past the front cooler while still filling it with hot= oil for cabin heating??? Hmm, not sure how I would plumb this. I understand why higher pressured hot oil in the cabin is not good, but as = you and I know, the lines are not actually in the cabin. The occupants are= isolated, but I now wonder if it may just be better to use the front coole= r for heating using water. That being said, it does not currently seem I ne= ed additional water cooling, but could use some more oil cooling ,thus a po= tential benefit of a front oil cooler. Of course all of this is on the gro= und in a very hot environment....it may be fine at 100+ mph. It is all spe= culation for now. My mind is still trying to wrap my mind around the balance of what is "best= ", acceptable and no way in hell and all the shades of gray in between. THANKS to all for allowing me to share and gain information. I got some fi= gerin' to do. All the best, Chris Barber Houston ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of = Al Gietzen [ALVentures@cox.net] Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:14 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seepage, no more. Oil system Hi; Chris; Seems to me the simplest approach, since you have that system all set up; i= s to simply connect the front oil cooler in parallel for use as your heater= . I assume you have the lines running through the left side duct per plans= , so the lines are not the cabin. That way in can still provide some addit= ional cooling for your oil, and provide cabin heat as required. Do you already have another cooler plumbed in near the engine? I=92d recom= mend -10 lines. FWIW; Al G My question to the collective is; would it be acceptable to use the aviatio= n oil cooler that is already installed in conjunction with my currant water= coolant system. My thinking is that an oil cooler, if I understand correct= ly, is more "durable" and able to withstand more pressure than the standard= water radiator. Of course, there may be reasons other than pressure that w= ould factor in, I just don't know them. IIRC, oil pressure has been up to 75 psi, whereas stock coolant pressure ca= ps are at about 13 and some in our uses some use 21psi caps. Thus, seemingl= y, this stock aviation cooler should be up to the task of being plumbed int= o my coolant system to provide heat for the cabin. I would think, perhaps i= n errors, that it should be at least as durable as a standard heater core. = It would save a nice bit of time not having to redo the glass and plumbing = at the front of the plane. I would like, in an ideal world, to remove the o= il cooler from then nose, flush it and reinstall as a water radiator. --_000_6A3D27B02C7348499A682286EDB23105020C37A863fcdmail05FCDA_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Al,
 
Yes, the aluminum lines r= un down the left duct to in front of the canard bulkhead, so no lines are a= ctually in the cabin.  I do not have an additional oil cooler plumbed = in the engine compartment
 
I do know the system was = plumbed in series, however, my ignorance prevents me from knowing why = re-plumbing them in parallel would change things.  Does plumbing in&nb= sp;parallel prevent the front cooler from being a restriction point since oil can flow past the front cooler while still filling it with= hot oil for cabin heating??? Hmm, not sure how I would plumb this.<= /div>
 
I understand why higher p= ressured hot oil in the cabin is not good, but as you and I know, the lines= are not actually in the cabin.  The occupants are isolated, but I now= wonder if it may just be better to use the front cooler for heating using water. That being said, it does not cu= rrently seem I need additional water cooling, but could use some more oil c= ooling ,thus a potential benefit of a front oil cooler.  Of course all= of this is on the ground in a very hot environment....it may be fine at 100+ mph.  It is all speculation for now.
 
My mind is still trying t= o wrap my mind around the balance of what is "best", acceptable a= nd no way in hell and all the shades of gray in between.
 
THANKS to all for allowin= g me to share and gain information.  I got some figerin' to do.=
 
All the best,
 
Chris Barber
Houston
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [fl= yrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen [ALVentures@cox.net]
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 11:14 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Seepage, no more. Oil system

Hi; Chris;<= /span>

 

Seems to me= the simplest approach, since you have that system all set up; is to simply= connect the front oil cooler in parallel for use as your heater.  I assume you have the lines running through = the left side duct per plans, so the lines are not the cabin.  That wa= y in can still provide some additional cooling for your oil, and provide ca= bin heat as required. 

 

Do you alre= ady have another cooler plumbed in near the engine?  I=92d recommend -= 10 lines.

 

FWIW;

 

Al G

 

My question to the collective is; would it be acceptable to use t= he aviation oil cooler that is already installed in conjunction with my currant water coolant system. My thinking is that a= n oil cooler, if I understand correctly, is more "durable" and ab= le to withstand more pressure than the standard water radiator. Of course, = there may be reasons other than pressure that would factor in, I just don't know them.

 

IIRC, oil pressure has been up to 75 psi, whereas stock coolant p= ressure caps are at about 13 and some in our uses some use 21psi caps. Thus, seemingly, this stock aviation cooler shou= ld be up to the task of being plumbed into my coolant system to provide hea= t for the cabin. I would think, perhaps in errors, that it should be at lea= st as durable as a standard heater core. It would save a nice bit of time not having to redo the glass and pl= umbing at the front of the plane. I would like, in an ideal world, to remov= e the oil cooler from then nose, flush it and reinstall as a water radiator= .

<= /span> 

--_000_6A3D27B02C7348499A682286EDB23105020C37A863fcdmail05FCDA_--