X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2783443 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:28:36 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.44; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080308232756.DRAB17893.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 18:27:56 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.137.74]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id ynTh1Y00H1cVYgg0000000; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 18:27:41 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Emailing: Inclinded Radiators.doc Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2008 15:30:07 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c88174$584c6450$6401a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C88131.4A292450" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C88131.4A292450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, Al, there was not any more to be had out of that document. I can understand that all angles of inclination may not be equal - in heat transfer or drag, but must admit I was surprised to find that 55deg supposedly provided 30% more heat transfer and 20% less drag than one perpendicular to the air flow. It would be interesting to find out the source of such a conclusion - I mean the graph looks like it comes from somewhere{:>) Ed. Ed; I didn't mean to imply that they were 'making it up'. I can believe that that is what they actually measured. From the drawing it appears that the diffuser section is what K & W called 'old style'; so with the rad perpendicular there may have been flow separation or whatever; IOW poor pressure recovery. Inclining the rad increased the pressure drop, and at some point the flow stayed attached and everything worked great - you see what I'm getting at. Too many other variables. It's like a one person testimonial on a health food supplement - "Oh, yeah; it cured my cancer, my athletes foot and bad breath; I swear by the stuff". And actual data shows it doesn't do anything. Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C88131.4A292450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Sorry, Al, there was not = any more to be had out of that document.  I can understand that all angles of inclination may not be equal - in heat transfer or drag, but must admit = I was surprised to find that 55deg supposedly provided 30% more heat transfer = and 20% less drag than one perpendicular to the air flow.  It would be = interesting to find out the source of such a conclusion - I mean the graph looks = like it comes from somewhere{:>)

  Ed.

Ed;

I didn’t mean to imply that = they were ‘making it up’.  I can believe that that is what = they actually measured. From the drawing it appears that the diffuser section = is what K & W called ‘old style’; so with the rad = perpendicular there may have been flow separation or whatever; IOW poor pressure recovery.  Inclining the rad increased the pressure drop, and at = some point the flow stayed attached and everything worked great – you see = what I’m getting at.  Too many other variables.  It’s like a one = person testimonial on a health food supplement – “Oh, yeah; it cured my cancer, = my athletes foot and bad breath; I swear by the stuff”.  And = actual data shows it doesn’t do anything.

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C88131.4A292450--