X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from bay0-omc1-s4.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.76] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2017642 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:59:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.246.76; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.250.79]) by bay0-omc1-s4.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:58:08 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 07:58:09 -0700 Message-ID: Received: from 4.171.150.138 by BAY115-DAV7.phx.gbl with DAV; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:58:05 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.171.150.138] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:58:00 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C78B16.6AE08970" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.50.0034.2000 Seal-Send-Time: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:58:00 -0400 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Apr 2007 14:58:09.0200 (UTC) FILETIME=[F74F9B00:01C78B37] Return-Path: lors01@msn.com This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C78B16.6AE08970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have tried two different oil-water cooling schemes and I could see the = potential advantages. When using the 83-84 (I think) Mazda oil/water = cooler it was not quite adequate as the oil temp was always near redline = in-flight, BUT! I was using the same radiators and had no air inlet for = the oil cooling thus I was using far less CFM of air to do the engine = cooling (the key to less cooling drag). The only shortcoming was that = there was simply too few square inches of heat exchanger area to get the = oil temp down to near the engine water temp. To do this takes a much = larger oil/water exchanger and that is what Art at Propelled Engineering = was using on his FWF demo engine. It looks like it has 6 - 10 times the = area of the Mazda oil/water cooler. In ground runs, the oil tracked = the water temp within a few degrees so I am hopeful that it will work = well in flight. Tracy=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:52 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers Hi Ed, I have no actual experience with a oil/coolant heat exchanger. I = looked at=20 them and decided that since I had room for an oil cooler (and already = owned=20 one) that a oil/coolant heat exchanger would not provide any benefit.=20 Theoretically, the heat transferred from the oil to the coolant raises = the=20 temperature of the coolant compared to the incoming cooling air - thus = making that arrangement thermodynamically more efficient due to the=20 increased temperature difference. On the other hand, this is = somewhat=20 offset by the fact that by raising the temp of the coolant the = temperature=20 difference between the oil and its cooling agent (the water) will be=20 lessened. Which in turn is offset by the fact that a lb of water can = carry=20 more heat than a lb of air {:>). However, I think the main advantage of the oil/coolant heat exchanger = is: 1. Give you more freedom in installation in that you can put the = exchanger=20 just about anywhere without worrying about how to get cooling air to = it. 2. Eliminates the need for a separate oil cooler Since you are dumping the oil heat into the coolant this will = generally=20 necessitate a large radiator system to handle the additional heat = load. Since I have no experience with the units, I am unaware of their most = common=20 failure mode. Personally, a case could be made that without airflow to = an=20 oil cooler you are better protected against rocks ect, damaging it. = If you=20 have a leak in the lubrication system your engine is going to seize = sooner=20 rather than later. Leaks in the coolant system will result in engine = damage=20 but at least two case shows that the overheated engine will still = continue=20 to function well enough, long enough to get you to a safe landing. I think your NASCAR contact can probably provide better input on the = pros=20 and cons of using one. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Ed Klepeis" = > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:06 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers > Dear Ed > What is your opinion on oil coolers air/oil or water/oil. I = know art=20 > is running a water cooler oil cooler and it works fine my concerns = are if=20 > you should lose water cooling there goes the whole system water and = oil.=20 > At least if you have your oil cooling system air cooled you have = some=20 > cooling of the eng to get you safely on the ground. Also less lines = to=20 > hook up without the water going to the oil cooler.I have a meeting = with my=20 > neighbor Waltrip the nascar fellows cheif mech to talk this subject = over=20 > will be interesting to see what the nasca boys say and use. I can = build it=20 > either air/oil or water/oil. What are the opinions out there.thanks >=20 > Regards >=20 > Ed Klepeis > > > ----- Original Message -----=20 > From: "Ed Anderson" = > > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = > > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:26 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Throttle body size > > >> Hi Buly, >> >> I have tired throttle bodies as big as 75mm, I went back to a 65 mm = >> Mustang Throttle body. Here is what I found. >> >> The larger throttle body provided no measurable increase in power=20 >> produced - in fact, the power actually went down as my static fell = 200=20 >> rpm. I did find that suddenly opening the large 75mm TB would cause = the=20 >> engine to bog and hesitate for a second. It was suggested that I = push=20 >> the throttle in more slowly, well, Scotty, when I want full power I = want=20 >> it NOW! >> >> In any case, I now fly and have flown with the 65 mm for 3 years. = I can=20 >> turn 6000 rpm static on a standard day and upto 6200 static on = those=20 >> wonderful cold mornings. I can shove the throttle in as fast as I = can=20 >> and there is no bog or hesitation. >> >> That is what my experience has been. For a full up all out race = engine,=20 >> I am certain Paul's suggestion has merit, but for our usage, I did = not=20 >> find a large TB provided any improvement and actually make flying = less=20 >> pleasant. >> >> Ed >> >> ----- Original Message -----=20 >> From: "Bulent Aliev" = > >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = > >> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:05 PM >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Throttle body size >> >> >>>I originally planned and tried TA set up on my Cosmo 13B. Soon = after the=20 >>>first few flights removed the turbo and vent NA. At the time did = not pay=20 >>>much attention on the throttle body size, counting on the turbo to = make=20 >>>up for any losses. Today I measured the inside opening of the TB = and was=20 >>>surprised to find it was only 60mm. This is rather small. Paul = Lamar on=20 >>>his visit also said I should get a bigger one. I wander what size = TB=20 >>>other people are using, or any comments and suggestions on the = matter=20 >>>will be helpful. >>> >>> Buly >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive and UnSub:=20 >>> = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub:=20 >> = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub:=20 > = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C78B16.6AE08970 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have tried two different oil-water cooling schemes and I could = see the=20 potential advantages.   When using the 83-84 (I think) = Mazda=20 oil/water cooler it was not quite adequate as the oil temp was = always near=20 redline in-flight,  BUT! I was using the same radiators and = had no air=20 inlet for the oil cooling thus I was using far less CFM of air to = do the=20 engine cooling (the key to less cooling drag).   The only = shortcoming=20 was that there was simply too few square inches of heat exchanger area = to get=20 the oil temp down to near the engine water temp.  To do this = takes a=20 much larger oil/water exchanger and that is what Art at Propelled = Engineering=20 was using on his FWF demo engine.  It looks like it has 6 - 10 = times the=20 area of the Mazda oil/water cooler.   In ground runs, the oil = tracked=20 the water temp within a few degrees so I am hopeful that it will work = well in=20 flight.
 
Tracy
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 = 8:52=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil=20 coolers

Hi Ed,

I have no actual experience with a = oil/coolant=20 heat exchanger.  I looked at
them and decided that since I = had room=20 for an oil cooler (and already owned
one) that a oil/coolant heat=20 exchanger would not provide any benefit.
Theoretically, the heat=20 transferred from the oil to the coolant raises the
temperature of = the=20 coolant compared to the incoming cooling air - thus
making that=20 arrangement thermodynamically more efficient due to the
increased=20 temperature difference.   On the other hand, this is = somewhat=20
offset by the fact that by raising the temp of the coolant the = temperature=20
difference between the oil and its cooling agent (the water) will = be=20
lessened.  Which in turn is offset by the fact that a lb of = water can=20 carry
more heat than a lb of air {:>).

However, I think = the main=20 advantage of the oil/coolant heat exchanger is:

1.   = Give you=20 more freedom in installation in that you can put the exchanger =
just about=20 anywhere without worrying about how to get cooling air to = it.
2. =20 Eliminates the need for a separate oil cooler

Since you are = dumping the=20 oil heat into the coolant this will generally
necessitate a large = radiator=20 system to handle the additional heat load.

Since I have no = experience=20 with the units, I am unaware of their most common
failure mode.=20 Personally, a case could be made that without airflow to an
oil = cooler you=20 are better protected against rocks ect, damaging it.  If you =
have a=20 leak in the lubrication system your engine is going to seize sooner =
rather=20 than later.  Leaks in the coolant system will result in engine = damage=20
but at least two case shows that the overheated engine will still = continue=20
to function well enough, long enough to get you to a safe=20 landing.

I think your NASCAR contact can probably provide = better input=20 on the pros
and cons of using one.

Ed


----- = Original=20 Message -----
From: "Ed Klepeis" <techwelding@comcast.net>To:=20 "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:=20 Sunday, April 29, 2007 10:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil=20 coolers


> Dear Ed
>      = What is=20 your opinion on oil coolers air/oil or water/oil. I know art
> = is=20 running a water cooler oil cooler and it works fine my concerns are if =
> you should lose water cooling there goes the whole system = water and=20 oil.
> At least if you have your oil cooling system air cooled = you have=20 some
> cooling of the eng to get you safely on the ground. Also = less=20 lines to
> hook up without the water going to the oil cooler.I = have a=20 meeting with my
> neighbor Waltrip the nascar fellows cheif = mech to=20 talk this subject over
> will be interesting to see what the = nasca boys=20 say and use. I can build it
> either air/oil or water/oil. What = are the=20 opinions out there.thanks
>
> Regards
>
> Ed = Klepeis
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> = From:=20 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t;
>=20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>=20 Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 7:26 PM
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Throttle=20 body size
>
>
>> Hi Buly,
>>
>> = I have=20 tired throttle bodies as big as 75mm, I went back to a 65 mm =
>>=20 Mustang Throttle body.  Here is what I = found.
>>
>> The=20 larger throttle body provided no measurable increase  in power=20
>> produced - in fact, the power actually went down as my = static=20 fell 200
>> rpm. I did find that suddenly opening the large = 75mm TB=20 would cause the
>> engine to bog and hesitate for a = second.  It=20 was suggested that I push
>> the throttle in more slowly, = well,=20 Scotty, when I want full power I want
>> it=20 NOW!
>>
>> In any case, I now fly and have flown = with the 65=20 mm for 3 years.  I can
>> turn 6000 rpm static on a = standard=20 day and upto 6200 static on those
>> wonderful cold = mornings. I can=20 shove the throttle in as fast as I  can
>> and there is = no bog=20 or hesitation.
>>
>> That is what my experience has=20 been.  For a full up all out race engine,
>> I am = certain=20 Paul's suggestion has merit, but for our usage, I did not
>> = find a=20 large TB provided any improvement and actually make flying less =
>>=20 pleasant.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> ----- = Original=20 Message -----
>> From: "Bulent Aliev" <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>
= >>=20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>>=20 Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 6:05 PM
>> Subject: [FlyRotary] = Throttle=20 body size
>>
>>
>>>I originally planned = and=20 tried TA set up on my Cosmo 13B. Soon after  the =
>>>first=20 few flights removed the turbo and vent NA. At the time did  not = pay=20
>>>much attention on the throttle body size, counting on=20 the  turbo to make
>>>up for any losses. Today I = measured=20 the inside opening  of the TB and was
>>>surprised = to find=20 it was only 60mm. This is rather  small. Paul Lamar on=20
>>>his visit also said I should get a bigger one. I  = wander=20 what size TB
>>>other people are using, or any comments = and =20 suggestions on the matter
>>>will be=20 helpful.
>>>
>>>=20 = Buly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
&= gt;>>
>>>=20 --
>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>&= gt;>=20 Archive and UnSub:
>>> http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
= >>
>>=20 --
>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>&= gt;=20 Archive and UnSub:
>> http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
= >
>
>
>=20 --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> = Archive=20 and UnSub:
> http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html=20


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archi= ve and=20 UnSub:   http:= //mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_00A1_01C78B16.6AE08970--