X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.6) with ESMTP id 4243314 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:29:34 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo03.cox.net ([70.169.32.75]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20100501022857.MFNN1969.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:28:57 -0400 Received: from willsPC ([174.66.174.143]) by fed1rmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id C2Um1e00A3600d2042UmmH; Fri, 30 Apr 2010 22:28:47 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=b4II0uhcJPnwjva2/FqJSYAtAoopJitAe4Ogu0tU6w4= c=1 sm=1 a=nHs_o3-T8nQA:10 a=+Wf/KPGOauV74ukzx3TzVw==:17 a=enXg87trAAAA:8 a=xPyZ54XvAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=ekHE3smAAAAA:20 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=cdvbGRg2AAAA:8 a=AIp-0f-_AAAA:8 a=SrOmCVz1hFRC349wkioA:9 a=HUGZnv8-RbQ6HbrgKCwA:7 a=KBn3MV1ohRAiekXq3HsnKjOTh4UA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=ll0uyuAD9U0A:10 a=DtX9bDk3-WcA:10 a=Z_uYubuBruwA:10 a=Iq9kPbaKMm8A:10 a=JDTDXIh_oDMA:10 a=1vhyWl4Y8LcA:10 a=gwgjrfR5T9EA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=c952RG9ADR0A:10 a=I0WRHVR3y-pQdNG-:21 a=lSs-qG4RI6zwbKxg:21 a=dGCoosULOdeLVtUGgqAA:9 a=FcnPx9abTIeBJm6s_U4A:7 a=tlK2rGpkOp8slVS--Z00I6MCf98A:4 a=sqn2dqEVbEhcwh3f:21 a=KeJxFWkxfc5f-49w:21 a=+Wf/KPGOauV74ukzx3TzVw==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: From: "Mike Wills" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Eductor scavenging of radiator outlet, WAS 20B RV-8 cooling results Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 19:28:47 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0083_01CAE89B.5AB97940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01CAE89B.5AB97940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I investigated an augmentor many years ago when first designing my = systems. I like the theoretical potential benefit. But as with all = things theoretical, here's what I heard from a number of people I talked = to who used one: 1) It adds measurable weight. 2) It adds complexity. 3) It adds noise (that alone in hindsight makes me glad I didn't do it - = god knows I don't need more noise). 4) And finally, not a single person I spoke with noticed a measurable = improvement in either cooling performance or drag reduction after adding = an augmentor, or noticed a measurable reduction after eliminating the = augmentor. Those seem like good enough reasons to pass on an augmentor unless you = are one of those guys that just has to prove it to yourself. Mike Wills=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:56 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Eductor scavenging of radiator outlet, WAS 20B = RV-8 cooling results Hi George, =20 You may have missed the e mail where Tracy described his "Eductor" = experiment - one reason his drag was so high was he was flying without a = cowl - or part of one. In any case, cooling was great but drag was = horrendous. You could certainly do better on drag if you designed and = build a slightly more "sophisticated" one than Tracy quickly came up = with. However, the question still remains as to whether the benefits vs = cost equation is on the right side of the line using an eductor as = opposed says to larger inlet opening? Its not a question of can it be = done - its been done, the real question is if it offered some cost = effective benefit why are not more folks using it? =20 I've attached a couple of discussions links related to augmentation that = you might want to read. Basically, it appears that the reason most = folks are not using them more are due to it simply not being worth the = effort - unless you are an all out air racer. That's my take on it. =20 http://aafo.com/racing/news/98/intrepid.htm =20 http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/firewall-forward-props-fuel-syst= em/395-exhaust-augmenter-cooling-system.html =20 http://www.homebuiltairplanes.com/forums/design-structures-cutting-edge-t= echnology/4897-exhaust-augmentoed-cooling.html =20 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 6:00 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Eductor scavenging of radiator outlet, WAS 20B = RV-8 cooling results =20 Tracy, Like yourself I have been considering the benefits of an Eductor for = some time, but can't understand why it would cause extra drag.=20 =20 As a matter of fact I thought it might decrease drag by speeding up the = rad exit air back up to outside air speed as it exits the cowl. =20 Can you explain the reasons behind the increased drag issues. George (down under) "Since the draw of air via low pressure on the output side seems to be = key, I wonder if an eductor type of scenario would work." Sometimes I doubt my ability to get a point across clearly :-) An = eductor can be made to help (but very hard to do as Ed pointed out) but = the point I was trying to make in my original post is that the draw of = air on the low side is NOT key. You will never get a fraction of the = pressure delta with low side help (even with an eductor) that you can = with the proper inlet and diffuser. This is especially true on faster = airplanes. A Pietenpol might be an exception. =20 The inlet is what fixed my problem. This is an extreme example but = when I used low side help, it did cool but the drag caused the fuel = consumption to increase by 50 - 60% ! at the test speed of 130 mph. = That's not a price you want to pay. Tracy On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Chris Owens - Rotary = wrote: You know, I don't know if this has been discussed, but the whole = pressure differential thing got me thinking of something that I'm = surprised I hadn't thought of earlier. Since the draw of air via low = pressure on the output side seems to be key, I wonder if an eductor type = of scenario would work. Back in my Navy days, we used to use a device called an in-line = eductor for dewatering flooded spaces. Similar to a venturi, more or = less, you pumped water through it, it created a suction, and it was = designed to suck as much water through it as you put into it. 100 = gallons per minute input would dewater at 100 gallons per minute with = 200 gallons per minute flowing through the output. A representative = device is here (perhaps not for fluid use, but the concept is similar): http://www.1877eductors.com/eductor_gas_dimensions.htm I presume a similar approach could be taken with a radiator setup, = would you think? I imagine it would work well for a center mounted = radiator with a centerline, below-the-nose scoop, so one could utilize = the cheek inlets to provide source air for the outlet side. ~Chris =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: "Ed Anderson" Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 7:08 AM To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B RV-8 cooling results Hi George, =20 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 =3D 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. =20 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. =20 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 {:>). =20 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. =20 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. =20 Ed =20 Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- 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 =20 Ed/ Tracy, 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. George ( down under) 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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. =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0083_01CAE89B.5AB97940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I investigated an augmentor many = years ago=20 when first designing my systems. I like the theoretical potential = benefit. But=20 as with all things theoretical, here's what I heard from a number of = people I=20 talked to who used one:
 
1) It adds measurable weight.
2) It adds complexity.
3) It adds noise (that alone in hindsight = makes me glad=20 I didn=92t do it - god knows I don=92t need more noise).
4) And finally, not a single person I spoke = with noticed=20 a measurable improvement in either cooling performance or drag reduction = after=20 adding an augmentor, or noticed a measurable reduction after eliminating = the=20 augmentor.
 
Those seem like good enough reasons to pass on = an=20 augmentor unless you are one of those guys that just has to prove it to=20 yourself.
 
Mike Wills 

Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 5:56 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Eductor scavenging of radiator = outlet, WAS=20 20B RV-8 cooling results

Hi=20 George,

 

You may have = missed the=20 e mail where Tracy described his =93Eductor=94 = experiment =96 one=20 reason his drag was so high was he was flying without a cowl =96 or part = of=20 one.  In any case, cooling was great but drag was horrendous.  = You=20 could certainly do better on drag if you designed and build a slightly = more=20 =93sophisticated=94 one than Tracy quickly came up with.  = However, the=20 question still remains as to whether the benefits vs cost equation is on = the=20 right side of the line using an eductor as opposed says to =   larger=20 inlet opening?  Its not a question of can it be done =96 its been = done, the=20 real question is if it offered some cost effective benefit why are not = more=20 folks using it?

 

I=92ve = attached a couple=20 of discussions links related to augmentation that you might want to = read. =20 Basically, it appears that the reason most folks are not using them more = are due=20 to it simply not being worth the effort =96 unless you are an all out = air=20 racer.  That=92s my take on it.

 

http://aafo.com/raci= ng/news/98/intrepid.htm

 

http://www.homebuil= tairplanes.com/forums/firewall-forward-props-fuel-system/395-exhaust-augm= enter-cooling-system.html

 

http://www.homebu= iltairplanes.com/forums/design-structures-cutting-edge-technology/4897-ex= haust-augmentoed-cooling.html

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW=20 Rotary Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.r= otaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On=20 Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 = 6:00=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Eductor = scavenging=20 of radiator outlet, WAS 20B RV-8 cooling=20 results

 

Tracy,

Like yourself I have been=20 considering the benefits of an Eductor for some time, but can't = understand why=20 it would cause extra drag.

 

As a matter of fact I = thought it=20 might decrease drag by speeding up the rad exit air back up to outside = air speed=20 as it exits the cowl.

 

Can you explain the = reasons=20 behind the increased drag issues.

George (down=20 under)

"Since the=20 draw of air via low pressure on the output side seems to be key, I = wonder if=20 an eductor type of scenario would work."

Sometimes=20 I doubt my ability to get a point across clearly :-)  An eductor = can be=20 made to help (but very hard to do as Ed pointed out)  but the = point I was=20 trying to make in my original post is that the draw of air on the low = side is=20 NOT key.   You will never get a fraction of the pressure delta = with low=20 side help (even with an eductor) that you can with the proper inlet = and=20 diffuser.   This is especially true on faster = airplanes.  A=20 Pietenpol might be an exception. 

The inlet is what fixed = my=20 problem.  This is an extreme example but when I used low side = help, it=20 did cool but the drag caused the fuel consumption to increase by 50 - = 60% ! at=20 the test speed of 130 mph.   That's not a price you want to=20 pay.

Tracy

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Chris Owens = - Rotary=20 <rotary@cmowens.com>=20 wrote:

You know, I don't know = if this has=20 been discussed, but the whole pressure differential thing got me = thinking of=20 something that I'm surprised I hadn't thought of earlier.  Since = the draw=20 of air via low pressure on the output side seems to be key, I wonder = if an=20 eductor type of scenario would work.

Back in my Navy days, we = used to=20 use a device called an in-line eductor for dewatering flooded = spaces. =20 Similar to a venturi, more or less, you pumped water through it, it = created a=20 suction, and it was designed to suck as much water through it as you = put into=20 it.  100 gallons per minute input would dewater at 100 gallons = per minute=20 with 200 gallons per minute flowing through the output.  A = representative=20 device is here (perhaps not for fluid use, but the concept is=20 similar):

http://www.1877eductors.com/eductor_gas_dimensions.htm

I=20 presume a similar approach could be taken with a radiator setup, would = you=20 think?  I imagine it would work well for a center mounted = radiator with a=20 centerline, below-the-nose scoop, so one could utilize the cheek = inlets to=20 provide source air for the outlet=20 side.

~Chris

 

From: "Ed=20 Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 = 7:08=20 AM
To: = "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B = RV-8 cooling=20 results

Hi=20 George,

 

As you = know, taking=20 heat away from your radiator cores requires sufficient air mass flow - = a=20 number of factors affect this - one of the principle factors is = pressure=20 differential across your core.  No pressure differential =3D no = flow. =20 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=20 increase in front of the core.  This is basically limited by your = airspeed and efficiency of your duct/diffuser.  The back side of = your=20 core air flow (in most installations) exits inside the cowl.  = Therefore=20 any positive pressure above ambient under the cowl is going to reduce = the=20 pressure differential across your core.  So once you have the = best=20 duct/diffuser you can achieve on the front side of the core - the only = thing=20 left to increase the pressure differential is to reduce the pressure = under the=20 cowl.

 

An extreme = example is=20 someone who flies with an opening (such as one of the typical inlet = holes=20 beside the prop) exposed to the air flow.  In effect this hole = with=20 little/no resistance to airflow can "pressurize" the cowl and raise = the air=20 pressure behind the radiator cores reducing the pressure differential = and=20 therefore the cooling.  Exhaust augmentation is theoretically a = way to=20 reduce the under the cowl pressure by using the exhaust pulse to = "pump" air=20 from under the cowl, thereby improving the Dp across = the core and=20 therefore your cooling.

 

While = exhaust=20 augmentation can apparently work - there was a KITPLANE issue back = several=20 years ago on the topic showing several installations where this was=20 used.  However, from what I read (and think I understand), it = takes some=20 carefully planning to get an installation to work correct and the = effort is=20 not trivial.  Give the challenges you may encounter (such as = motor mount=20 struts, etc), fabrication of the augmentation exit,  the need to = have the=20 exhaust pulse exit at or inside the cowl (or construct an extended = bottom cowl=20 tunnel) means you would have the bark of a rotary in front of your = feet. =20 Also, to gain maximum advantage of these techniques, it is desirable = to have=20 the exhaust velocity at the maximum - which implies little/no = muffling. =20 Having had my muffler back out one time (at the cowl exit), I can tell = you=20 that you do not want to position the pilot behind the exhaust outlet = (in my=20 opinion).  It is much quieter when you have the exhaust exit = behind the=20 position of the pilot {:>).

 

Some few = people seem=20 to have been able to achieve some degree of success, but even in = aircraft=20 where you have an engine without the aggressive bark of the rotary, = you seldom=20 see it used.  The basic reason (in my opinion), is that it offers = few=20 advantages (cooling wise) that can not be achieved easier and more = reliability=20 by other methods.  For an all out racer where noise and = discomfort is=20 secondary, it may have some benefit.

 

Having said = that,=20 it's clear that in some installations it appears to work well (see = KITPLANE=20 issue), but if it were the magic solution, I think many more folks = would be=20 employing it - but, again, just my = opinion.

 

Ed

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW=20 Rotary Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html<= FONT=20 size=3D2 face=3DArial>

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George = Lendich
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 = 9:41=20 PM
To: = Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 20B = RV-8 cooling=20 results

 

Ed/=20 Tracy,

Can't say as I = understand=20 Tracy's set-=20 up completely, other than it's toward the lower end of Rad sizes. I = was=20 thinking to myself how I could create a -ve pressure in the rad = outlet to=20 create a suction on the Rad. We all know how the exhaust augmentation = works=20 and I was wondering why we can't do the same thing with the rad = outlets by=20 running the rad outlets inro a larger outlet fed by outside air. At = idle the=20 air is fed by the prop air stream and at level fight it is fed by = outside air=20 stream.

The outside air could=20 be could controlled by a butterfly - simple enough. I know there = emphasis=20 on using shutter /flaps to control the cowl outlet and I believe their = good at=20 restricting air flow, but I don't know if this equates to a good -ve = pressure=20 behind the Rad. This presupposes the Rads are completely enclosed for = both=20 inlet and outlet air.

George ( down=20 under)

75% of my cooling problems were solved = with the oil=20 cooler change I did but still needed more margin for hot weather = climbs.=20   Made the decision to not change or enlarge the cooling outlet = (that=20 adds drag)  so went ahead and butchered the pretty inlets I = made. =20
Ed Anderson's spreadsheet on BTUs & CFM cooling air required = was=20 instrumental in deciding to go this way.   It showed that = without=20 negative pressure on the back side of the rads, there would never be = enough=20 cfm to do the job during climb at full throttle.  Negative = pressure is=20 what I had when I flew without the cowl on but oh what a draggy = condition=20 that was.

The old inlets were 4.5" diameter for the radiator = and=20 4.125" diameter for oil cooler.
New inlets=20 are        5.190" for the = rad,  and=20   4.875" dia for the oil.

This may not sound like a lot = but it=20 represents a 36% increase in inlet area.

Results were=20 excellent.  Oil temp went down 19 degrees at the test speed = (130) and=20 water temp dropped 9 degrees.  On 80 degree day and 500 ft msl = the oil=20 temp maxed out at 194F at 210 mph which is way faster than I would = normally=20 go at this altitude.  Temp was around 175 at 130.    = Oil Temp=20 in climb remained below redline (210) but the temperature lapse rate = today=20 made results not very meaningful.  OAT was dropping 14 degrees = a minute=20 at 3000 fpm climb rate.

now back to that nasty composite = work to=20 pretty up the inlets again.  They look like large stubby pitot = tubes=20 now.

I hadn't thought of a good name for the RV-8 but a = friend in=20 California=20 recently came up with the winning idea which fit it well. = "Euphoriac" =20 It's a term from a  Sci Fi book (Vintage Season)  meaning=20 something which induces euphoria. =20

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0083_01CAE89B.5AB97940--