X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 50 [XX] (19%) URL: contains host with port number (19%) SPAMTRICK: obfuscated phone number (19%) RECEIVED: IP not found on home country list (10%) BODY: contains text similar to "no experience" (-17%) URL: weird port adjustment (-17%) BODY: correction: likely legitimate obfuscated series of numbers Return-Path: Received: from [209.87.238.133] (HELO intldata.ca) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2018093 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:49:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.87.238.133; envelope-from=jwhaley@intldata.ca Received: from jwhaley ([209.87.238.175]) by intldata.ca (intldata.ca) (MDaemon PRO v9.5.6) with ESMTP id md50000544864.msg for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:44:13 -0400 From: "Jeff Whaley" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:46:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0093_01C78B3E.A9E8D4B0" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AceLOECBqPBqKVRPTjmW2V9WGHkQzAAJubFw In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Spam-Processed: intldata.ca, Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:44:14 -0400 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 209.87.238.175 X-Return-Path: jwhaley@intldata.ca X-Envelope-From: jwhaley@intldata.ca X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Reply-To: jwhaley@intldata.ca Message-ID: X-MDAV-Processed: intldata.ca, Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:44:15 -0400 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C78B3E.A9E8D4B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit FWIW, Ford/Modine makes a simple heat exchanger that adapts to the oil filter, though it is not directly compatible with the 13B and would not provide all necessary cooling, it could be used to compliment an installation that is on the edge . see attached url example. http://www.sdsefi.com/air11.html Jeff Whaley _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 10:58 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Anderson To: Rotary motors in aircraft 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 them and decided that since I had room for an oil cooler (and already owned one) that a oil/coolant heat exchanger would not provide any benefit. Theoretically, the heat transferred from the oil to the coolant raises the temperature of the coolant compared to the incoming cooling air - thus making that arrangement thermodynamically more efficient due to the increased temperature difference. On the other hand, this is somewhat offset by the fact that by raising the temp of the coolant the temperature difference between the oil and its cooling agent (the water) will be lessened. Which in turn is offset by the fact that a lb of water can carry 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 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 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 failure mode. Personally, a case could be made that without airflow to an oil cooler you are better protected against rocks ect, damaging it. If you have a leak in the lubrication system your engine is going to seize sooner rather than later. Leaks in the coolant system will result in engine damage but at least two case shows that the overheated engine will still continue 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 and cons of using one. Ed ----- Original Message ----- 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 > is 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 oil. > At least if you have your oil cooling system air cooled you have some > cooling of the eng to get you safely on the ground. Also less lines to > hook up without the water going to the oil cooler.I have a meeting with my > neighbor Waltrip the nascar fellows cheif mech to talk this subject over > will be interesting to see what the nasca boys say and use. I can build it > either air/oil or water/oil. What are the opinions out there.thanks > > Regards > > Ed Klepeis > > > ----- Original Message ----- > 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 >> produced - in fact, the power actually went down as my static fell 200 >> rpm. I did find that suddenly opening the large 75mm TB would cause the >> engine to bog and hesitate for a second. It was suggested that I push >> the throttle in more slowly, well, Scotty, when I want full power I want >> it NOW! >> >> In any case, I now fly and have flown with the 65 mm for 3 years. I can >> turn 6000 rpm static on a standard day and upto 6200 static on those >> wonderful cold mornings. I can shove the throttle in as fast as I can >> and there is no bog or hesitation. >> >> That is what my experience has been. For a full up all out race engine, >> I am certain Paul's suggestion has merit, but for our usage, I did not >> find a large TB provided any improvement and actually make flying less >> pleasant. >> >> Ed >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> 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 >>>first few flights removed the turbo and vent NA. At the time did not pay >>>much attention on the throttle body size, counting on the turbo to make >>>up for any losses. Today I measured the inside opening of the TB and was >>>surprised to find it was only 60mm. This is rather small. Paul Lamar on >>>his visit also said I should get a bigger one. I wander what size TB >>>other people are using, or any comments and suggestions on the matter >>>will be helpful. >>> >>> Buly >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive and UnSub: >>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> >> >> -- >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive and UnSub: >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >> > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html __________ NOD32 2231 (20070430) Information __________ This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C78B3E.A9E8D4B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

FWIW, Ford/Modine makes a simple = heat exchanger that adapts to the oil filter, though it is not directly = compatible with the 13B and would not provide all necessary cooling, it could be = used to compliment an installation that is on the edge  … see = attached url example.

http://www.sdsefi.com/air11.htm= l

Jeff Whaley

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Monday, April 30, = 2007 10:58 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = oil coolers

 

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

----- Original Message ----- =

From: Ed Anderson =

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
them and decided that since I had room for an oil cooler (and already = owned
one) that a oil/coolant heat exchanger would not provide any benefit. =
Theoretically, the heat transferred from the oil to the coolant raises = the
temperature of the coolant compared to the incoming cooling air - thus =
making that arrangement thermodynamically more efficient due to the
increased temperature difference.   On the other hand, this is somewhat
offset by the fact that by raising the temp of the coolant the = temperature
difference between the oil and its cooling agent (the water) will be =
lessened.  Which in turn is offset by the fact that a lb of water = can carry
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
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 =
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
failure mode. Personally, a case could be made that without airflow to = an
oil cooler you are better protected against rocks ect, damaging = it.  If you
have a leak in the lubrication system your engine is going to seize = sooner
rather than later.  Leaks in the coolant system will result in = engine damage
but at least two case shows that the overheated engine will still = continue
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
and cons of using one.

Ed


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


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http= ://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html



__________ NOD32 2231 (20070430) Information __________

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_0093_01C78B3E.A9E8D4B0--