X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m24.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.5] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2c1) with ESMTP id 2491670 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:17:20 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.5; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.3.) id q.d67.1a8a976a (37544) for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:16:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from WEBMAIL-MC14 (webmail-mc14.webmail.aol.com [64.12.170.91]) by cia-mb02.mx.aol.com (v120.9) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMB025-92a8473dc2493ce; Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:16:09 -0500 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: heat exchanger placement Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:16:10 -0500 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: wrjjrs@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8C9F68322655289_9D4_623E_WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL WebMail 31361-STANDARD Received: from 65.161.241.3 by WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com (64.12.170.91) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:16:10 -0500 Message-Id: <8C9F68322655289-9D4-3007@WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com> X-AOL-IP: 64.12.170.91 X-Spam-Flag: NO ----------MB_8C9F68322655289_9D4_623E_WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Relocating the radiators is a GOOD idea. You can eliminate a lot of additional drag. The P-51 was reputedly a net zero loss for cooling drag, which is pretty darn good really. The only thing bad about the idea is that you must plumb it up well too. Many of the engines we run don't have a really great water pump either so you might consider a remote mount version, which unfortunately also adds to complication. A good mechanical water pump will absorb nearly 5 HP at max rpm. You must also consider the effects on the weight and balance. Nearly every water cooled WW2 fighter that was considered a success mounted the water rads in the fuselage or in or under the wings. Bill jepson -----Original Message----- From: George Lendich To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 9:11 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: heat exchanger placement ? > Hi > Following on from this thin vs thick radiator discussion. What's the? > general consensus on placement of the heat exchanger/s? Seems to me the? > most efficient WW11 planes had the exchangers mounted under the wing or? > fuselage but nearly everyone here is placing them under the cowl, is the? > reason for this just because its an easier installation to make, or is? > it no less efficient at our power/speed.? > My aim is to minimize total drag even if it means a longer build time to? > get the installation correct, current thoughts are to place a short? > thick coolant exchanger under the fuselage and have a clean tight? > fitting cowl with only inlets for induction and oil heat exchanger,? > hopefully there will be enough air going through the oil exchanger to? > keep under cowl temps reasonable. > Am I just plane crazy?? > Regards Andrew Martin.? ? Andrew, The extra plumbing seems to be one problem.? George ( down under)? ? --? Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/? Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html? ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com ----------MB_8C9F68322655289_9D4_623E_WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Relocating the radiators is a GOOD idea. You can eliminate a lot of additional drag. The P-51 was reputedly a net zero loss for cooling drag, which is pretty darn good really. The only thing bad about the idea is that you must plumb it up well too. Many of the engines we run don't have a really great water pump either so you might consider a remote mount version, which unfortunately also adds to complication. A good mechanical water pump will absorb nearly 5 HP at max rpm. You must also consider the effects on the weight and balance. Nearly every water cooled WW2 fighter that was considered a success mounted the water rads in the fuselage or in or under the wings.
Bill jepson


-----Original Message-----
From: George Lendich <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 9:11 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: heat exchanger placement

 
> Hi > Following on from this thin vs thick radiator discussion. What's the 
> general consensus on placement of the heat exchanger/s? Seems to me the 
> most efficient WW11 planes had the exchangers mounted under the wing or 
> fuselage but nearly everyone here is placing them under the cowl, is the 
> reason for this just because its an easier installation to make, or is 
> it no less efficient at our power/speed. 
> My aim is to minimize total drag even if it means a longer build time to 
> get the installation correct, current thoughts are to place a short 
> thick coolant exchanger under the fuselage and have a clean tight 
> fitting cowl with only inlets for induction and oil heat exchanger, 
> hopefully there will be enough air going through the oil exchanger to 
> keep under cowl temps reasonable. > Am I just plane crazy? 
> Regards Andrew Martin. 
 
Andrew, The extra plumbing seems to be one problem. 
George ( down under) 
 
-- 
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ 
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html 
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!
----------MB_8C9F68322655289_9D4_623E_WEBMAIL-MC14.sysops.aol.com--