X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2018364 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:59:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.40; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070430225827.CDGY1218.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:58:27 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.132.90]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id tayS1W00L1xAn3c0000000; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 18:58:26 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: oil coolers Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:58:26 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c78b83$71c74590$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B40.63A67690" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B40.63A67690 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Along those lines, an idea that I've never seen fully tested is a = water core inside the oil pan. The advantages would be that you don't need = extra space for an oil cooler, and you have only one pressurized oil hose. = The oil pickup tube is a bit of an obstacle, but with your welding talents, = I'm sure you could work around this. =20 =20 Submerging cooling coils, or a tube-fin matrix in the oil pan is not effective because the oil has poor conductivity, and is not moving. It would seem possible that a configuration in which the oil returning to = the sump (or pump inlet) had to run through the matrix cooled by the coolant could work; but the question is getting sufficient surface area for what would still be a poor heat transfer coefficient. Plumbed in downstream = from the radiator on the coolant side to increase the temperature difference = can help. =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B40.63A67690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

  Along those lines, an idea that I've never seen fully tested is a water = core inside the oil pan.   The advantages would be that you don't = need extra space for an oil cooler, and you have only one pressurized oil hose.   The oil pickup tube is a bit of an obstacle, but = with your welding talents, I'm sure you could work around this.  =

 

Submerging cooling coils, or a = tube-fin matrix in the oil pan is not effective because the oil has poor = conductivity, and is not moving.  It would seem possible that a configuration in = which the oil returning to the sump (or pump inlet) had to run through the = matrix cooled by the coolant could work; but the question is getting sufficient = surface area for what would still be a poor heat transfer coefficient.  Plumbed = in downstream from the radiator on the coolant side to increase the temperature = difference can help.

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B40.63A67690--