Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.3) with ESMTP id 2579063 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:34:36 -0400 Received: from rad ([68.212.12.251]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with ESMTP id <20030914153436.LZCT1843.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Sun, 14 Sep 2003 11:34:36 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Reduce Inlet? Was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Good news, Bad news Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 10:34:36 -0500 Message-ID: <002501c37ad5$b4978f00$0201a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0026_01C37AAB.CBC18700" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C37AAB.CBC18700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Based on my recent experience in reducing my raditor inlet ducting by 30 = % (from a total of 48 in^2 to 33in^2 and cooling was still adequate, you = might try minimizing your inlet are first. I can't tell the size of it but it looks to be pretty large. Since you have coolant and oil air flowing through the one duct my estimate is that it does not need to total more than 72 in^2. =20 =20 Hi Ed. From my notes, the inlet is 80 sq in, which Tracy figured was somewhere around HUGE. No doubt it can be reduced. I probably need to cover over about a third of my radiator also, to simulate the estimated = size of the replacement "water only" radiator. This was sized to cool oil as well, and the extra capacity is certainly there. =20 =20 As for the size of the inlet, I wonder if it really needs to be that = much larger than yours? The oil cooler is sized larger than it needed to be, based on the fact that it was getting second hand air from the radiator. Since the air is doing double duty, maybe the opening doesn't have to be that much larger. For the record, the original plan was to start huge, = and experiment with something smaller until I found the required size, then = use that for the new cowl. (extra point to John for thinking of this also = ). =20 Rusty (Tidyu for Ed) ------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C37AAB.CBC18700 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Based on my recent experience in reducing my raditor = inlet=20 ducting by 30 % (from a total of 48 in^2 to 33in^2 and cooling was still = adequate, you might try minimizing your inlet are first.  I can't = tell the=20 size of it but it looks to be  pretty large.  Since you have = coolant=20 and oil air flowing through the one duct my estimate is that it does not = need=20 to
total more than 72 in^2.   

 
Hi = Ed.  From my=20 notes, the inlet is 80 sq in, which Tracy figured was somewhere around=20 HUGE.  No doubt it can be reduced.  I probably need to cover = over=20 about a third of my radiator also, to simulate the estimated size = of the=20 replacement "water only" radiator.  This was sized to cool oil = as=20 well, and the extra capacity is certainly=20 there.  
 
As for = the size of the=20 inlet, I wonder if it really needs to be that much larger than = yours? =20 The oil cooler is sized larger than it needed to be, based on the fact = that it=20 was getting second hand air from the radiator.  Since the air = is doing=20 double duty, maybe the opening doesn't have to be that much = larger.  For=20 the record, the original plan was to start huge, and experiment = with=20 something smaller until I found the required size, then use that = for the=20 new cowl.  (extra point to John for thinking of this also = <g>). 
 
Rusty = (Tidyu for=20 Ed)
------=_NextPart_000_0026_01C37AAB.CBC18700--