Message

Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2642980 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:54:35 -0400 Received: from rad ([68.212.14.231]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with ESMTP id <20031020015434.KFWB1789.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 21:54:34 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "Flyrotary List" Subject: Today's cooling confusion Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:54:36 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c396ad$1d963e00$6001a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C39683.34C03600" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C39683.34C03600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Greetings, Well, I had everything back like it was previously, so I figured I would just go up to make sure my oil temp was back to 180 like before. Instead, I found that the temp climbed to 220 by the time I got to 5000 ft. This baffled me, until I realized (hours later on the way home) that I had only briefly tested the temps after blocking off the bottom opening in my cowl. Looking back on the logs, I did that test when I was limited to a couple thousand feet, for a short flight. Bottom line is that it wasn't a good test. What made me think about this, was the fact that I "thought" I caused the high oil temps yesterday, when I reduced the inlet from 80 to 48 sq inches. In fact, today's numbers are almost identical, so the inlet restriction didn't really hurt me much. Once I realized that the inlet change didn't hurt me, I had to assume that the outlet was too small, and then I realized the error of my testing methods. For the next flights, I'll remove the cover plate on the bottom exit, and make sure I'm back to 180 for oil temp. If that's the case, I'll just have to factor this into the Rev 2 plan, and I can go back to restricting the inlet. Rusty (I'm learning- slowly) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C39683.34C03600 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Greetings,

Well, I = had everything=20 back like it was previously, so I figured I would just go up to make = sure my oil=20 temp was back to 180 like before. Instead, I found=20 that the temp climbed to 220 by the time I got to 5000 ft. =20 This = baffled me,=20 until I realized (hours later on the way home) that I had only = briefly=20 tested the temps after blocking off the bottom opening in my cowl. = Looking=20 back on the logs, I did that test when I was limited to a couple = thousand=20 feet, for a short flight. Bottom line is that it wasn't a = good=20 test.

What made me=20 think about this, was the fact that I "thought" I caused the high = oil temps=20 yesterday, when I reduced the inlet from 80 to 48 sq inches. = In fact,=20 today's numbers are almost identical, so the inlet restriction didn't = really=20 hurt me much. Once I realized that the inlet change didn't hurt = me, I had=20 to assume that the outlet was too small, and then I realized = the error=20 of my testing methods.

For the next = flights, I'll=20 remove the cover plate on the bottom exit, and make sure I'm back = to 180=20 for oil temp. If that's the case, I'll just have to factor this = into the=20 Rev 2 plan, and I can go back to restricting the = inlet.

Rusty (I'm = learning-=20 slowly)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C39683.34C03600--