Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.6) with ESMTP id 2715674 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Nov 2003 23:02:47 -0500 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hA942iOj013380 for ; Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:02:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004401c3a675$d43c1e40$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Evaporator Cores for slow planes? Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 22:59:09 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: [FlyRotary] Evaporator Cores for slow planes? > Good Evening... > > From my readings of print and posts past I thought I > understood evaporator cores were not appropriate for > aircraft which travel at around 130mph or less. > However, Ed Anderson recently posted "...with the > engine idling at 2000 rpm, you would need the > equivalent of a 15 mph wind through the cores to > maintain adequate cooling. ..." This statement starts > me down the path( again ) of again considering evap > cores instead of the stock radiator. > > Thus, with that preface what is the consensus on what > the airspeed range is when evap cores are not the best > choice and something like the stock radiator is more > appropriate. > > Thank You. > > -Scott Hi Scott, It all depends on how much power you are going to produce and at what airspeed your will normally cruise at. I do sit on the ground at idle and have absolutly no problem with over temps using evaporator cores. However, they would not cool for long should I up the power even modestly to say 4000 rpm. But at 2000 rpm you are only producing approx 24 HP so two cores and the oil cooler will remove that much heat as long as you have some air blowing through the cores. I don't have a direct answer to your question, but if you want to know where I would start, I would consider a thinner radiator if I were going to consistently fly under 120MPH at high power settings. However, even if 1w0MPH were your cruise airspeed, you probably would not be producing anywhere the power at cruise that you will for take off. So again its trying to balance the cooling you need for most of your flight regime with that needed to get you through the most adverse conditions - high power for take off with low airspeed. True, you can always put in enough radiator to keep it cool at high power and slow speeds, however, you may pay a high pentalty in drag at higher airspeeds such as curise, where you will spend most of you time flying. So like most other areas, cooling is one of compromise. Ed Anderson