Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2627278 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Oct 2003 11:35:17 -0400 Received: from rad ([68.212.10.7]) by imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with ESMTP id <20031007153519.FIIK16928.imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2003 11:35:19 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Evans NPG+ cooling systems Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 10:35:18 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c38ce8$9cf35580$0201a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38CBE.B41D4D80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38CBE.B41D4D80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Its tough to beat pure water for removing heat. But, this NPG+ stuff = might be worthwhile considering - who's going first?? My 0.02 worth. Ed Anderson =20 Ed, you sure saved me a lot of typing :-) =20 I've looked into the Evan's stuff before, because it gets mentioned on = the RX-7 forums a bit. It's a known fact that it doesn't cool as well as = water, or even 50/50 water antifreeze. Their main claim is that you can get = better fuel efficiency at higher temps, however, higher temps are not good for = our engines, and they aren't good for power either. Here's a quote from = Lynn that was in a previous message: =20 The engine builder reports power lost above 160 degrees on the oil temp. Water under 200 is OK. Power loss above 180, but no damage.=20 =20 Remember the rule, when Lynn speaks, I take notes :-) =20 =20 The main thing that I find interesting about the Evan's coolant is that = you can run a no-pressure system. That would certainly eliminate some leak potential. Also, I wonder if it wouldn't extend your engines life a bit = in the event of a leak, slipping belt on the water pump, etc. I can't see = it saving the engine, but it might give you more chance to make an airport landing. =20 =20 If I end up with too much cooling capacity in the final cowl version, = I'll think about trying the Evan's stuff. Rusty =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38CBE.B41D4D80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Its tough to beat pure water for removing heat.  = But, this=20 NPG+ stuff might be worthwhile considering - who's going first??  = My 0.02=20 worth.

Ed Anderson

 
Ed, you = sure saved me a=20 lot of typing :-)
 
I've = looked into the=20 Evan's stuff before, because it gets mentioned on the RX-7 forums a = bit. =20 It's a known fact that it doesn't cool as well as water, or even 50/50 = water=20 antifreeze.  Their main claim is that you can get better fuel = efficiency at=20 higher temps, however, higher temps are not good for our engines, and = they=20 aren't good for power either.  Here's a quote from Lynn that was in = a=20 previous message:
 
The engine = builder reports=20 power lost above 160 degrees on the oil temp. Water under 200 is = OK. Power=20 loss above 180, but no damage.
 
Remember = the rule, when=20 Lynn speaks, I take notes :-) 
 
The main = thing that I=20 find interesting about the Evan's coolant is that you can run a = no-pressure=20 system.  That would certainly eliminate some leak = potential. =20 Also, I wonder if it wouldn't extend your engines life a bit = in the=20 event of a leak, slipping belt on the water pump, etc.  I = can't see it=20 saving the engine, but it might give you more chance to make an airport=20 landing.  
 
If I end = up with too=20 much cooling capacity in the final cowl version, I'll think about=20 trying the Evan's stuff.
Rusty
 


 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C38CBE.B41D4D80--