X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao105.cox.net ([68.230.241.41] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2870179 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:37:43 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.41; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao105.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080424143703.YOOS7113.fed1rmmtao105.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:37:03 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.137.74]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id HSd31Z00A1cVYgg04Sd3uZ; Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:37:03 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling sytem changes- Velocity 20B Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 06:41:01 -0800 Message-ID: <000501c8a619$37663ee0$6401a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A5D6.2942FEE0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A5D6.2942FEE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Al; Just a couple of questions to clarify a couple of things. = Are you still using a separate air/oil cooler as well, or did you convert = the oil cooler to another coolant rad? Yes, Todd; the oil coolers are connected in parallel. The rejection = capacity of oil/water cooler I added is only about a third of the required total. = I have two coolant rads in parallel as well. =20 I've considered adding a small cooler like yours in addition to my 2 = Evap cores (coolant) and Mazda oil cooler, just to "balance" out the heat. I always found that the oil temps lagged far behind the coolant temps (in = both heating and cooling), so I felt it may add some value to making temps = more stable. I think coupling of the two systems is a good idea, although certainly = not required. If everything works out right you probably save a few pounds = just going with oil to air. =20 It seems to have worked very well for you. You're using a = turbo on that 20B as well aren't you? No turbo. I decided the 20B had plenty of power as NA for my = application. =20 Best, =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A5D6.2942FEE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi = Al;

       &nbs= p;    Just a couple of questions to clarify a couple of things… Are you still = using a separate air/oil cooler as well, or did you convert the oil cooler to = another coolant rad?

Yes, Todd; the oil coolers are connected in parallel. The rejection capacity = of oil/water cooler I added is only about a third of the required total. I have two = coolant rads in parallel as well.

 

 I’ve considered adding a small cooler like yours in addition to my 2 Evap = cores (coolant) and Mazda oil cooler, just to “balance” out the = heat. I always found that the oil temps lagged far behind the coolant temps (in = both heating and cooling), so I felt it may add some value to making temps = more stable.

I think coupling of the two systems is a good idea, although certainly not required.  If everything works out right you probably save a few = pounds just going with oil to air.

 

       &nbs= p;    It seems to have worked very well for you. You’re using a turbo on = that 20B as well aren’t you?

No turbo.  I decided the 20B had plenty of power as NA for my = application.

 

Best,

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A5D6.2942FEE0--