X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([216.148.227.153] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1094425 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 May 2006 09:24:47 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.148.227.153; envelope-from=wschertz@comcast.net Received: from rmailcenter05.comcast.net ([204.127.197.115]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20060506132401m1300pbgsle>; Sat, 6 May 2006 13:24:01 +0000 Received: from [24.7.194.200] by rmailcenter05.comcast.net; Sat, 06 May 2006 13:24:01 +0000 From: wschertz@comcast.net To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oil cooler lines Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 13:24:01 +0000 Message-Id: <050620061324.4173.445CA37100020F4C0000104D2200735834969B9D0A080C9C99@comcast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006) X-Authenticated-Sender: d3NjaGVydHpAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4173_1146921841_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4173_1146921841_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Buly, You are correct that parallel coolers will be more efficient, IF the liquid flow through the coolers are the same. Bill Schertz -------------- Original message -------------- From: Bulent Aliev > I believe parallel coolers will be more efficient due to the higher > delta T. In a serial set up, the liquid in the second cooler will be > lower temp. and less efficient heat transfer will take place. Just an > opinion of an eyeball engineer? > Buly > On May 5, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote: > > > Bob, > > One other comment........There is some difference of opinion > > among the group > > whether connecting coolers (oil or coolent) in series (as you > > propose) or in > > parallel is the most efficient method.........We have group members > > currently > > flying with both methods........Most that I am aware of that use > > both methods > > are for coolent systems as not many are using two oil > > coolers........I personally > > lean toward a parallel coolent system........Any comments from > > others in the > > group about this question would be welcome as I know we have > > several with > > experience or training in this area !! What would be most efficient > > for one > > system should probably apply to the other.......IMHO > > -- > > Kelly Troyer > > Dyke Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2 > > > > > > > > > > -------------- Original message from kenpowell@comcast.net: > > -------------- > > > > Bob, > > I think you should have made the lines larger to help lower presure > > drop in the long lines. I understand that the extra oil in the > > lines will be heavy but the pressure drop would be a tradeoff that > > I wouldn't want to make. > > > > Ken Powell > > Bryant, Arkansas > > 501-847-4721 > > C150 / RV-4 under construction > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > From: BMears9413@aol.com > > I'm running two oil coolers in the Spitfire. Due to the lengthe of > > the lines and volume of the two coolers I reduced my oil lines to > > AN8 (I think stock they were 10?) Now, before I close everything up > > I'm having second guessing. My total line length will be around > > 12'. I had planned on running the lines to one oil cooler, then the > > other, then back to the motor. > > Any comments? > > > > Bob Mears > > Buly > http://tinyurl.com/dcy36 > > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4173_1146921841_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Buly,
You are correct that parallel coolers will be more efficient, IF the liquid flow through the coolers are the same.
Bill Schertz
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>

> I believe parallel coolers will be more efficient due to the higher
> delta T. In a serial set up, the liquid in the second cooler will be
> lower temp. and less efficient heat transfer will take place. Just an
> opinion of an eyeball engineer?
> Buly
> On May 5, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote:
>
> > Bob,
> > One other comment........There is some difference of opinion
> > among the group
> > whether connecting coolers (oil or coolent) in series (as you
> > propose) or in
> > parallel is the most efficient method.........We have group members
> > currently
> > flying with both methods........Most that I am aware of that use
> > both methods
&g t; > are for coolent systems as not many are using two oil
> > coolers........I personally
> > lean toward a parallel coolent system........Any comments from
> > others in the
> > group about this question would be welcome as I know we have
> > several with
> > experience or training in this area !! What would be most efficient
> > for one
> > system should probably apply to the other.......IMHO
> > --
> > Kelly Troyer
> > Dyke Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------- Original message from kenpowell@comcast.net:
> > --------------
> >
> > Bob,
> > I think you should have made the lines larger to help lower presure
> > drop in the long lines. I understand that the extra oil in the
> > lines will be heavy but the pressure drop would be a tradeoff that
> > I wouldn't want to make.
> >
> > Ken Powell
> > Bryant, Arkansas
> > 501-847-4721
> > C150 / RV-4 under construction
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: BMears9413@aol.com
> > I'm running two oil coolers in the Spitfire. Due to the lengthe of
> > the lines and volume of the two coolers I reduced my oil lines to
> > AN8 (I think stock they were 10?) Now, before I close everything up
> > I'm having second guessing. My total line length will be around
> > 12'. I had planned on running the lines to one oil cooler, then the
> > other, then back to the motor.
> > Any comments?
> >
> > Bob Mears
>
> Buly
> http://tinyurl.com/dcy36
>
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://ma il.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_4173_1146921841_0--