|
|
Which brings us back to your idea of running the EWP pretty much flat out and
controlling the temperature with cowl flaps. Good idea. I hadn't thought about
the lower flows causing large temperature differentials from one end to the
other of the system. Wonder what Craig Davies' thoughts are on that line of
thought.
Good thinking .... Jim S.
Marvin Kaye wrote:
Posted for "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>:
Just to add fuel to the confusion factor, I would say that varying the flow
through the system is a very poor way to control temperature.
For one thing, it won't do any such thing. Slowing down the coolant will
only increase the temp at the far end of its path through the engine. It
will have the OPPOSITE effect at the point where coolant enters the engine,
thus increasing the temperature differential between the two ends of the
system. This is not a good thing.
I'm not saying that the thermostat should be retained but Mazda's double
acting thermostat was designed to eliminate this factor by bypassing the
radiator when excess cooling was available (not usually a factor in aircraft
use). I agree with Leon that eliminating the thermostat is probably a big
factor in allowing the EWP to work correctly.
Nothing is simple is it?
Tracy Crook
tcrook@rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com
> > The speed controller probably makes sense in a car but my guess is that
it
> > would be just another source of failure in an aircraft application. I'd
run
> > it wide open.
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
|
|