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.