Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc13.comcast.net ([204.127.198.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 853676 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 03 Apr 2005 19:07:00 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.198.39; envelope-from=techwelding@comcast.net Received: from dell (pcp08732020pcs.paduca01.ky.comcast.net[69.139.125.92]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc13) with SMTP id <20050403230608015001ra06e>; Sun, 3 Apr 2005 23:06:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c538a1$b517e7a0$5c7d8b45@dell> From: "Ed Klepeis" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Cooling -Learned a lot Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 18:04:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Dear Ed How about a rad 16x18x2.25 with a mazda oil cooler along side mounted in a sq tube frame hung under the eng mount in rubber mounts, could you go for such a set up. let me know. regards Ed K techwelding@comcast.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:14 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Cooling -Learned a lot > Too right, Jerry > > My first 40 hours or so were in the marginal cooling zone. {:>). As > other > things in this hobby, there are so many variables that interact, that what > may appear simply at first, is almost always a bit more complex. I > say(Cooling Axiom 1) if you have enough cooling surface area and air mass > flow then it WILL cool. However, you may incur a high penalty in > cooling > drag - which may not be as important for draggy airframes (such as > biplanes) > as it is to sleeker airframes. Also a system that adequately cools an > engine producing 150 HP may not cool an engine producing 180 HP. Picking > your cooling design point is important. Optimizing for cruise and your > will > be less than optimum for take and climb. Optimize for climb and you will > probably have more cooling drag than required at cruise. Compromise, > compromise - cowl flaps are sometimes used to try to have the best of both > worlds. > > Some folks advocate a thinner, larger surface area core -which is great > for > slow moving automobiles stuck in traffic with low dynamic pressure > potential, but I think is not the optimum for most aircraft. Once you > trip > the airflow and turn it turbulent you have incurred most of the drag > penalty. Larger surface area cores disrupt a larger airstream and incur > more drag. Yes, thicker cores produce a bit more drag than the SAME > frontal > area thinner cores. But, with a thicker core you can use a core with > smaller frontal area. > > The NASCAR radiator's average 3" thick and on the long tracks where > speeds > are higher some even go up to 7" thick. My contention is their operating > environment is more akin to ours than regular automobiles moving at slower > speeds. You know that the NASCAR folks will spend $$ for just a tiny > advantage - so clearly they don't use thick cores because it is a > disadvantage. But, some folks will continue to point to the large thin > radiators designed for environments with much lower dynamic pressure as > being the way to go. Will it cool? sure it will (Cooling axiom 1 above). > Is it the lowest drag option for an aircraft of the RV/TailWind type, I am > convinced it is not. > > The diffuser makes a considerable amount of difference and can made the > difference between a system that cools adequately and one which does not. > The biggest culprit that lessens cooling effectiveness is turbulent eddies > that form inside the duct due to flow detachment from the walls. These > eddies in effect act to block effective airflow through part of the core. > So keeping the airflow attached to the sides of the diffusers is crucial > for > good cooling from two standpoints. A good diffuser will reduce airflow > velocity through the core which will reduces cooling drag. Pressure > across > the core is increased which further enhances cooling. > > I have gone from a total of 48 sq inches opening (total) for my two GM > cores > and that provided marginal cooling - down to 28 sq inches (total) with > adequate cooling with an engine now producing more HP. Experimenting with > the diffuser shape made the difference. > > The K&W book (Chapter 12) really provided the insight to how and which > diffuser shapes provided the better dynamic recovery. The Streamline duct > was shown to be able to provide up to 82% recovery of the dynamic > pressure. > Some folks reading the chapter misinterpreted the chart to show only 42% > recovery where there chart was actually only showing the pressure recovery > contribution due to the duct walls and did not include the contribution > due > to the core. On the same chart, an equation (which apparently gets > ignored) > clearly shows that the TOTAL pressure recovery is 82%. > > I have taken the Streamline duct as a starting point, but since I do not > have the space to provide the 12-14" for a proper Streamline duct, I did > some "creative" things to try to insure that there was no separation even > though my walls diverge more rapidly than the Streamline duct. Won't > claim > mine are as good as a Streamline, but they clearly are much better than > the > previous design which basically just captured the air and forced it > through > the cores. > > FWIW > > Ed Anderson > RV-6A N494BW 275 Rotary Hours (Plugs Up) > Matthews, NC > eanderson@carolina.rr.com > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jerry Hey" > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 9:27 AM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: phase I flight restrictions was:N19VX flys > > >> It was not long ago that "cooling" was the major issue. Now it seems >> that we have learned enough to make several different configurations >> work. I can't lay my finger on what it is we have learned but my >> recommendation is to use smaller radiators and EWPs. Jerry >> >> >> > > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html