Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.100] (HELO ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2924428 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:35:31 -0500 Received: from defaultcompute (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-01-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i09CZTKY003913 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 07:35:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00d301c3d6ad$1f7edd40$1202a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Series vs parralel rads Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 07:35:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C3D683.3665B1C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C3D683.3665B1C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Series vs parralel rads =20 =20 Ed, =20 You can put me down for series rads and Jim M as well. = Neither one of us could get the coolant to flow equally through parallel = rads. Jim went so far as to add ball valves on the hot core to try and = limit it's flow. It worked to a degree but plumbing got very heavy and = complicated. SNIP Series rads would give a similar % drop divided by 2 for each. 215 - 8% = =3D 199. Then the second rad sees 199 - 8% =3D 184 (I rounded off the = numbers cuz 1 degree isn't an issue) By my calculation (which may be = out in left field) the difference is negligible. =20 =20 Neil (Giving Rusty something else to think about) Thanks, Neil, Yes, I recall the effort Jim (and you) made trying to get parallel = cores to flow evenly. My personal opinion is that if using evaporator = cores with an NA 13B then plumbing them in series saves weight and complexity. If on the = otherhand, you are need all the cooling you can get (turbocharged = perhaps), then parallel cores may be required. Both clearly work if = designed and set up properly. Now if I could only produce so much power = that I would be forced to go to parallel {:>) Ed Anderson =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C3D683.3665B1C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Series vs=20 parralel=20 rads

Ed,

   &n= bsp;       =20 You can put me down for series rads and Jim M as well. Neither one = of us=20 could get the coolant to flow equally through parallel rads. Jim = went so=20 far as to add ball valves on the hot core to try and limit it’s = flow. It=20 worked to a degree but plumbing got very heavy and = complicated.
  =20 SNIP

Series rads would give a similar % drop divided by 2 for = each. =20 215 – 8% =3D 199. Then the second rad sees 199 – 8% = =3D 184 (I rounded=20 off the numbers cuz 1 degree isn’t an issue) By my = calculation (which may=20 be out in left field) the difference is negligible. =20

Neil (Giving Rusty something else to think=20 about)

Thanks, Neil,

    Yes, I = recall the=20 effort Jim (and you) made trying to get parallel cores to flow = evenly. My=20 personal opinion is that if using evaporator cores with an NA 13B=20 then
plumbing them in series saves weight and complexity. If on = the=20 otherhand, you are need all the cooling you can get (turbocharged = perhaps), then=20 parallel cores may be required. Both clearly work if = designed and=20 set up properly. Now if I could only produce so much power that I = would be=20 forced to go to parallel {:>)

Ed=20 Anderson        =20
           =20
------=_NextPart_000_00D0_01C3D683.3665B1C0--