Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #3689
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Sender: Marvin Kaye <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] solo's & Delta T... no more emergencies
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:27:21 -0400
To: <flyrotary>
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Haywire
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] solo's & Delta T... no more emergencies

Hey Guy's;
    Well today we had very high winds (30Kts) so we sat on the ground most of the day watching  SNIP
 
    What I found was somewhat surprising. I found that the coolant rads (2 Ford evap cores plumbed in parallel) had a delta T of 20C, while the Oil cooler only had a delta T of 5C.
 SNIP
 
    The oil cooler is a little disappointing to have only a Delta T of 5C or 9F. I'd expected much higher. Ed were you planning on measuring deltaT through the oil as well or just the coolant? I'd like to know what others are getting. I hope to get out again tomorrow afternoon and if the weather is better with higher ceilings, I'll do a longer climb followed by a longer run at cruise speed to allow temps to stabilize a little better. Tonight's circuits were admittedly not the ideal run for gathering data, but I thought some may be interested in my results. I'll try to gather more data in the days to come.
    The EWP continues to function perfectly.

S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B RV-9Endurance
C-FSTB
 

Thanks for the data, Todd.

I use a delta T of 20F for coolant drop across the GM cores as an estimate for my cooling calculations. I had not thought about the oil cooler, but it would be fairly simple matter to just switch a couple of the thermocouples.  I'll put that on my list of "to dos"

 I wouldn't worry too much about the oil delta T only being 9F so long as your oil out of your cooler stays below 210F (180F being ideal).  I suspect that the flow rate through the oil cooler is higher  (Lynn do you have figures on the GPM for the oil pump - or anybody?)  - which would mean more heat removed from the engine even with the smaller delta T. 

  Q = M*(Tout-Tin)*Cp, the heat transfer equation  indicates that the heat removed (Q) is dependent on mass flow (M) and Delta T(Tout-Tin). Specific heat (CP) is fixed for the cooling medium.  (One implicit assumption is that the mass flow (air/water/oil) is carrying away as much heat as it theoretically can - not always the case in the real world as things like boundary layers, laminar flow, etc can reduce the theoretical transfer of heat to the medium)

 In any case, Q will remain the same so long as the product of M*(Tout-Tin) remains the same.  So if M is less - then the Delta T would need to be higher (better transfer of heat to the medium), if M is more then the Delta T can be less for the same amount of Q removed. So while you can get a greater Delta T by slowing the coolant flow through the radiator, that means you have decreased M - which means less heat removal (Q) from the engine.  For a given Delta T, the equation shows you always remove more heat with increase mass flow (M) (all else being equal).

 So the 36F is certainly greater than the 20F.  Now, the question is whether that 36F means the system is cooling better?  I would say based on the flow rates you got when experimenting the answer is definitely - yes.  However, as just stated, just because you get a greater Delta T in coolant temp across the radiators does not Necessarily mean you have better cooling. 

 While it is always possible to show a greater Delta T by slowing the flow of coolant through a radiator (exposing it to the cooling air longer), the crucial cooling performance factor is how much heat (Q)  is being removed from the engine. If the flow (M) is too low, clearly you impede heat removal from the engine no matter what the Delta T is across the radiators.

 It would appear there is an optimum flow rate factor.  If its too slow the delta T across the radiators looks great - but, the slower cooling flow does not remove as much heat from the engine.  It appears that more flow always results in more heat removed from the engine - however, above certain flow rates, you start to encounter a lot of losses due to turbulence, friction, etc. and more power is required to pump the coolant.

Since it appears that the flow rates are comparable (I can't recall for certain, but, I think you found the Ford cores even flowed a bit better than the GM cores) between the two type cores and if the 36F represents the delta T for the Ford Vs 20F for the GM cores for the same flow rate, then you are clearly getting more heat rejection.

So, I would say that if your coolant temp coming out of the engine stays at or near the 180F or less mark,  then you are getting close to optimum cooling.  If the coolant temp varies significant from that then you may need to check things closer. 

Its great to get this type of data.  It could mean me swapping out my old GM cores for Ford Cores (it would make my Ford Areostar and Windstar happier {:>))

 

Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster