Hi George,
As you know, taking heat away from your
radiator cores requires sufficient air mass flow – a number of factors
affect this – one of the principle factors is pressure differential
across your core. No pressure differential = no flow. The primary
positive pressure on the front side of the core comes from converting dynamic
energy of the moving air into a local static pressure increase in front of the
core. This is basically limited by your airspeed and efficiency of your
duct/diffuser. The back side of your core air flow (in most
installations) exits inside the cowl. Therefore any positive pressure
above ambient under the cowl is going to reduce the pressure differential
across your core. So once you have the best duct/diffuser you can achieve
on the front side of the core – the only thing left to increase the
pressure differential is to reduce the pressure under the cowl.
An extreme example is someone who flies
with an opening (such as one of the typical inlet holes beside the prop)
exposed to the air flow. In effect this hole with little/no resistance to
airflow can “pressurize” the cowl and raise the air pressure behind
the radiator cores reducing the pressure differential and therefore the
cooling. Exhaust augmentation is theoretically a way to reduce the under
the cowl pressure by using the exhaust pulse to “pump” air from
under the cowl, thereby improving the Dp across the core and therefore your cooling.
While exhaust augmentation can apparently
work – there was a KITPLANE issue back several years ago on the topic
showing several installations where this was used. However, from what I
read (and think I understand), it takes some carefully planning to get an
installation to work correct and the effort is not trivial. Give the challenges
you may encounter (such as motor mount struts, etc), fabrication of the
augmentation exit, the need to have the exhaust pulse exit at or inside
the cowl (or construct an extended bottom cowl tunnel) means you would have the
bark of a rotary in front of your feet. Also, to gain maximum advantage
of these techniques, it is desirable to have the exhaust velocity at the maximum
– which implies little/no muffling. Having had my muffler back out
one time (at the cowl exit), I can tell you that you do not want to position
the pilot behind the exhaust outlet (in my opinion). It is much quieter
when you have the exhaust exit behind the position of the pilot {:>).
Some few people seem to have been able to
achieve some degree of success, but even in aircraft where you have an engine
without the aggressive bark of the rotary, you seldom see it used. The
basic reason (in my opinion), is that it offers few advantages (cooling wise)
that can not be achieved easier and more reliability by other methods.
For an all out racer where noise and discomfort is secondary, it may have some
benefit.
Having said that, it’s clear that in
some installations it appears to work well (see KITPLANE issue), but if it were
the magic solution, I think many more folks would be employing it – but,
again, just my opinion.
Ed
From: Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:41
PM
To: Rotary
motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B RV-8
cooling results
Can't say as I understand Tracy's set- up completely, other than it's
toward the lower end of Rad sizes. I was thinking to myself how I could
create a -ve pressure in the rad outlet to create a suction on the Rad. We all
know how the exhaust augmentation works and I was wondering why we can't do the
same thing with the rad outlets by running the rad outlets inro a larger outlet
fed by outside air. At idle the air is fed by the prop air stream and at level
fight it is fed by outside air stream.
The outside air could be could controlled by a
butterfly - simple enough. I know there emphasis on using shutter /flaps to
control the cowl outlet and I believe their good at restricting air flow, but I
don't know if this equates to a good -ve pressure behind the Rad. This
presupposes the Rads are completely enclosed for both inlet and outlet air.
75% of my cooling problems were solved with the oil cooler change I did
but still needed more margin for hot weather climbs. Made the decision
to not change or enlarge the cooling outlet (that adds drag) so went
ahead and butchered the pretty inlets I made.
Ed Anderson's spreadsheet on BTUs & CFM cooling air required was
instrumental in deciding to go this way. It showed that without
negative pressure on the back side of the rads, there would never be enough cfm
to do the job during climb at full throttle. Negative pressure is what I
had when I flew without the cowl on but oh what a draggy condition that was.
The old inlets were 4.5" diameter for the radiator and 4.125"
diameter for oil cooler.
New inlets are 5.190" for the
rad, and 4.875" dia for the oil.
This may not sound like a lot but it represents a 36% increase in inlet area.
Results were excellent. Oil temp went down 19 degrees at the test speed
(130) and water temp dropped 9 degrees. On 80 degree day and 500 ft msl
the oil temp maxed out at 194F at 210 mph which is way faster than I would
normally go at this altitude. Temp was around 175 at 130.
Oil Temp in climb remained below redline (210) but the temperature lapse rate
today made results not very meaningful. OAT was dropping 14 degrees a
minute at 3000 fpm climb rate.
now back to that nasty composite work to pretty up the inlets again. They
look like large stubby pitot tubes now.
I hadn't thought of a good name for the RV-8 but a friend in California recently came up with the winning
idea which fit it well. "Euphoriac" It's a term from a
Sci Fi book (Vintage Season) meaning something which induces
euphoria.