Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Received: from [65.33.166.207] (account marv@lancaironline.net)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.1.8)
  with HTTP id 2897787 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:22:18 -0500
From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: evap core versus radiator
To: flyrotary
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.1.8
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:22:18 -0500
Message-ID: <web-2897787@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <001101c3c65c$2f7c9310$0000a398@Carol>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "sqpilot@earthlink" <sqpilot@earthlink.net>:


> So a 9x10.5x3.6 GM core turns out to be pretty close to what the equations
> indicate in required for that power and airspeed.  Actually perhaps a bit
> thicker at 3.64 inch than optimum at 120 MPH according to the equations.
So
> the 3" thick core could be a bit closer to optimum if using a GM type core
> than the 3.6" core for 120MPH cooling and would probably improve cooling
in
> the take-off and initial climb phase where there is less dynamic pressure
to
> force air through the cores.



  Hi, Ed....Do I understand correctly that only one of these cores would be
needed to cool 160 HP at 120 MPH?  Thanks.  Paul Conner