Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. Did they fill up the gap left by the rad as it was inclined by using a bigger rad? If so, the rad was not a fixed factor so the data is not too meaningful. Ignoring that is like ignoring the angle and saying that a bigger rad gave them 30% more cooling. Well Duh.. :>)
Tracy
On Sun, Mar 9, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Ernest Christley < echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:
Ed Anderson wrote:
> 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{:>)
>
The last sentence is interesting, and may be the key to their finding:
Due to the use of larger radiator, weight incensement finally eliminates
the benefits gained by an inclined radiator...
So it appears that they have a set amount of room for a radiator. Set
vertical, the rad is small doesn't cool well and the air is still moving
fast so it makes a lot of drag. Lay it over, and you increase the
frontal area and increase radiator volume. The air has expanded, thus
moving slower, reducing drag.
We tend to start with a required amount of cooling, and let that lead us
to how much radiator we need. We design that in, whatever it takes.
This approach starts with a given volume, and looks to fill it with the
most cooling possible.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|