X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:54:41 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-732348@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <walter@advancedpilot.com>
Received: from secure5.liveoakhosting.com ([64.49.254.21] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2)
  with ESMTPS id 732202 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 19:18:59 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.49.254.21; envelope-from=walter@advancedpilot.com
Received: (qmail 15128 invoked by uid 2520); 24 Sep 2005 18:18:05 -0500
Received: from 68.108.237.23 by secure5.liveoakhosting.com (envelope-from <walter@advancedpilot.com>, uid 2020) with qmail-scanner-1.25st 
 (clamdscan: 0.84/921. perlscan: 1.25st.  
 Clear:RC:0(68.108.237.23):. 
 Processed in 0.055077 secs); 24 Sep 2005 23:18:05 -0000
Received: from ip68-108-237-23.br.no.cox.net (HELO ?10.0.1.4?) (68.108.237.23)
  by rs5.liveoakhosting.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2005 18:18:05 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <list-731573@logan.com>
References: <list-731573@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-12--1027310418
X-Original-Message-Id: <c12884842f78ebf13aec92863c4f0f7f@advancedpilot.com>
From: Walter Atkinson <walter@advancedpilot.com>
Subject: Re: [LML] Engine Cooling and Cabin Heat
X-Original-Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:15:44 -0500
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622)


--Apple-Mail-12--1027310418
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed

I consider those CHTs in a NA airplane to be a bit too high.  The=20
larger cowl openings may actually have reduced CHT cooling and resulted=20=

in higher CHTs.  Testing would be required to be certain of that, but=20
it is very possible.

Walter


On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:26 PM, william rumburg wrote:

Engine cooling air inlets=A0on=A0my 320 cowl=A0measured about 3-3/4 =
inches=20
circular as the molded parts were received. I'm certain they were=20
designed to be four inches and, even at that, are marginal in=A0order to=20=

minimize cooling drag.=A0I enlarged=A0them to the four inch dimension =
and=20
believe it to be a smart move. CHTs=A0for=A0my IO-320 are=A0about 400 on=20=

climb out and 360 to 380 in cruise (dependent on altitude and power=20
setting) which=A0isn't bad, but I'd like to see them a little lower.
My=A0only intentional drain of engine cooling air was a 1/2 inch=A0tube =
to=20
cool the=A0gascolator and electric boost pump; however, when the cabin=20=

heat valve was recently discussed, I realized that=A0valve supplied by=20=

Lancair exhausts air overboard when closed and is thus a=A0useless drain=20=

of cooling air - if it's source is a 1-1/2 opening in the baffling.
Am I correct and would installing a seperate NACA duct=A0to=A0supply=20
air=A0to=A0the cabin heat valve result in lower CHTs?
=A0
Bill Rumburg
N403WR (Sonic bOOm)=

--Apple-Mail-12--1027310418
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

I consider those CHTs in a NA airplane to be a bit too high.  The
larger cowl openings may actually have reduced CHT cooling and
resulted in higher CHTs.  Testing would be required to be certain of
that, but it is very possible.


Walter



On Sep 23, 2005, at 9:26 PM, william rumburg wrote:


<smaller><x-tad-smaller>Engine cooling air inlets=A0on=A0my 320
cowl=A0measured about 3-3/4 inches circular as the molded parts were
received. I'm certain they were designed to be four inches and, even
at that, are marginal in=A0order to minimize cooling drag.=A0I
enlarged=A0them to the four inch dimension and believe it to be a smart
move. CHTs=A0for=A0my IO-320 are=A0about 400 on climb out and 360 to 380 =
in
cruise (dependent on altitude and power setting) which=A0isn't bad, but
I'd like to see them a little lower.</x-tad-smaller></smaller>

<smaller><x-tad-smaller>My=A0only intentional drain of engine cooling
air was a 1/2 inch=A0tube to cool the=A0gascolator and electric boost
pump; however, when the cabin heat valve was recently discussed, I
realized that=A0valve supplied by Lancair exhausts air overboard when
closed and is thus a=A0useless drain of cooling air - if it's source is
a 1-1/2 opening in the baffling.</x-tad-smaller></smaller>

<smaller><x-tad-smaller>Am I correct and would installing a seperate
NACA duct=A0to=A0supply air=A0to=A0the cabin heat valve result in lower =
CHTs?</x-tad-smaller></smaller>

<smaller><x-tad-smaller>=A0</x-tad-smaller></smaller>

<smaller><x-tad-smaller>Bill Rumburg</x-tad-smaller></smaller>

<smaller><x-tad-smaller>N403WR (Sonic bOOm)</x-tad-smaller></smaller>=

--Apple-Mail-12--1027310418--