Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2790475 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:14:01 -0500 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id hB62DvwR001018 for ; Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:13:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004b01c3bb9e$205b7f40$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: K&M and Thick Radiators Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 21:05:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine > Ed, > > It looks like you and I were coming to similar conclusions. > > My present plan for my, as yet, unstarted Cozy (unless > one counts completion of the shop facilities) is to mount > two cores - e.g. the Frigidaire EV6709 - in tandem, with > the water flow going first through the rear core and then > through the front one. The delta-T won't be *ideal* in > either core, but it will be substantial. I just have to > work out a plenum that allows no air leakage between the > cores. > > Still trying to keep the expenses down, without being > "cheap". > > Dale R. Sounds like a reasonable approach to me, Dale. With the hotest coolant in the rear core which is seeing the hotest air (after going through the first core), you are still maintaing the greatest delta T between your metal core wall temperatures and the air temperature. The as the coolant has given up some of its heat in the rear core, it flows into the front core where the air is cooler thereby "maintaining" the maximum delta T spread. So in theory looks good. As Al mentioned, however (always an however {:>)), you must have sufficient dynamic pressure to push adequate air mass through both radiators. In a Cozy at cruise, I don't think you would have any problem. Low airspeeds like take off an extended climb will the the case that really tests the idea. I do not recall anyone actually having flown with this type of set up although it has come up in discussion before. I still going through chapter 12 of Kuchemann and Webber and am starting to understand ( I believe) some of the sutelties in it about cooling. Some excellence information - just a bit heavy on the math side and interpretating all the various "coefficients" they throw around. It appears (If I am interpreting it correctly) that there are a few "ground rules" that can be distilled applying to a cooling system design. Some good information on inlet diffusers/heat exchangers AND what makes good practices in exit ducts (the part I am trying to get into my dense head at this time). I am trying to understand the math well enough to put some of it into a spreadsheet and see if the numbers that come out make any sense. So, I would say, that you are on a good path. The only thing I can think of is you may want that you give a lot of attention to your take off and climb regime cooling requirements. One thing I read that is encouraging about thick radiators, is that one of the radiator design companies claim that a 4" thick radiator only offers about 10% more air resistance than a 2" thick radiator. If so then I would think a stack of two evaporator cores shouldn't offer much more than 15% of so added resistance over one. Lets see - I wonder if that means since the dynamic pressure is 1/2density *Velocity squared (and that is the delta pressure that really ends up pushing the air mass through the radiator) would you need to go 15% faster air speed or perhaps only sqrt(15) = 3.87 say 4% faster to get sufficient delta P to compensate for the thicker core stack. Only crunching some numbers would probably provide the answer. Anyhow, get to work, so we can see how it works out. Best Regards Ed Anderson