Return-Path: Received: from fed1mtao06.cox.net ([68.6.19.125] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2570708 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 07 Sep 2003 13:30:58 -0400 Received: from Leonards ([68.111.228.182]) by fed1mtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.04 201-253-122-130-104-20030726) with ESMTP id <20030907173055.VYKA28680.fed1mtao06.cox.net@Leonards> for ; Sun, 7 Sep 2003 13:30:55 -0400 From: "David Leonard" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: water flow restrictor Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2003 10:30:58 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c37565$cd58c740$b6e46f44@Leonards> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3752B.20F9EF40" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3752B.20F9EF40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Great find, Rusty. That's perfect. If I find that it is too difficult to keep appropriate temps with just the cowl flap I will be getting one of those. David Leonard The Rotary Roster: http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Russell Duffy Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:12 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: water flow restrictor Although I would probably prefer to run a thermostat, my water pump housing lost the ability to house a thermostat when it got chopped down to size. How about an inline thermostat- http://www.crracing.com/estore/partdesc.cfm?category=therm Rusty ------ Depending on how your pump housing was cut down, this might not be a good idea. You'd have to make sure you always had flow, so perhaps a restrictor is a better idea. The size of the restrictor will be trial and error, since it will be dependent on your radiator cooling capability. I couldn't get the water temp over 130 without a thermostat, but my radiator is pretty huge, and obviously isn't absorbing any heat from the oil like it's supposed to. Rusty (again) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3752B.20F9EF40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Great find, Rusty.  = That’s perfect.  If I find that it is too difficult to keep appropriate temps with just = the cowl flap I will be getting one of those.

 

David Leonard

The Rotary = Roster:

http://memb= ers.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Russell Duffy
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:12 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = water flow restrictor

 

Although I would probably prefer to run a thermostat, my water = pump housing lost the ability to house a thermostat when it got chopped down = to size. 

 

 

Rusty 

------

 

 

Depending on how your pump housing = was cut down, this might not be a good idea.  You'd have to make sure you = always had flow, so perhaps a restrictor is a better idea.  The size of = the restrictor will be trial and error, since it will be dependent on your = radiator cooling capability.  I couldn't get the water temp over 130 without = a thermostat, but my radiator is pretty huge, and obviously isn't = absorbing any heat from the oil like it's supposed to. 

 

Rusty (again)

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C3752B.20F9EF40--