X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 64 [XX] (18%) URL: contains host with port number (18%) SPAMTRICK: obfuscated phone number (18%) SPAMTRICK: obfuscated phone number (18%) SPAMTRICK: obfuscated phone number (-15%) BODY: obfuscated phone number adjustment (-15%) BODY: obfuscated phone number adjustment Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 2018385 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:14:09 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.42; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070430231318.BPEA24310.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:13:18 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.132.90]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id tbDH1W0021xAn3c0000000; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:13:17 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling Effectiveness Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:13:17 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c78b85$849866c0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B42.767526C0" 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_01C78B42.767526C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ? The fan is a great idea, however there must be some drag or cooling penalty to pay while in the air? Al, have you made more changes to your "through the wing" cooling system or are you still using/experimenting = w/ it? Jarrett I haven't noticed any reduction in cooling while in the air after adding = the fan. I think the amount of air flow is the same - determined more by = the inlet area of the scoop. I suspect there is some additional pressure = drop, so a bit of cooling drag; but since I don't have an exit ducting on the radiator anyway, the difference is likely not noticeable. =20 I made a more effective inlet scoop for the in-wing oil cooler, and that = is working fine. I haven't made any changes on the second coolant radiator = that is in the other wing. Although it is not very effective due = insufficient air flow, the in-cowl radiator is very effective, so overall things are fine. At some point I am going to experiment with the exit faring to = see if that might be a better solution than changing the inlet. If that = radiator can be made more effective, I can reduce the size of the scoop on the in-cowl rad to reduce some drag. All in due course . . . =20 Al=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B42.767526C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

? The fan is a great idea, however there = must be some drag or cooling penalty to pay while in the air? Al, have you made = more changes to your "through the wing" cooling system or are you = still using/experimenting w/ it?

Jarrett

I = haven’t noticed any reduction in cooling while in the air after adding the fan. =  I think the amount of air flow is the same - determined = more by the inlet area of the scoop.  I suspect there is some additional = pressure drop, so a bit of cooling drag; but since I don't have an exit ducting = on the radiator anyway, the difference is likely not = noticeable.

 

I made a more effective inlet scoop for the in-wing oil cooler, and that = is working fine. I haven’t made any changes on the second coolant = radiator that is in the other wing.  Although it is not very effective due = insufficient air flow, the in-cowl radiator is very effective, so overall things are fine.  At some point I am going to experiment with the exit faring = to see if that might be a better solution than changing the inlet.  If = that radiator can be made more effective, I can reduce the size of the scoop = on the in-cowl rad to reduce some drag.  All in due course . . = .

 

Al = 

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   =
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C78B42.767526C0--