X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3906308 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:22:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (sv1-1.per.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.68]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4763D17380C for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:21:43 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id A8E23BEC00A for ; Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:21:41 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling report Date: Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:21:43 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA59F2.6A419100" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5843 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 091030-0, 10/30/2009), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA59F2.6A419100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Al, That's good info. If I remember right the argument was the fan blade being close to the = rad, would restrict flow when not in use, and to allow the blade to = freewheel would kill the fan bearings. It's obvious that a fan on the ground is quite an advantage. I always felt that a fan that could swing away, out of the air flow, = would be ideal. However having the room to do that would be problematic. George ( down under) Al,=20 I believe Rino said he had a fan on the oil cooler, which I feel = would be restrictive in aviation use, from what I've heard. Might be = good for taxiing etc. George ( down under) George; I added a fan behind the coolant radiator; and found it had no = detrimental effect in flight, and made a big improvement in cooling on = the ground. This is on a pusher (Velocity) with a ram scoop. I expect = it could make a difference depending on what type of fan and the = effectiveness of the intake scoop. Al G ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA59F2.6A419100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Al,

That's good info.

If I remember right the argument was = the fan blade=20 being close to the rad, would restrict flow when not in use, and to = allow the blade to freewheel would kill the fan = bearings.

It's obvious that a fan on the ground = is quite an=20 advantage.

I always felt that a fan that could = swing away, out=20 of the air flow, would be ideal. However having the room to do that = would be=20 problematic.

George ( down under)

Al,=20

I believe Rino said he = had a fan=20 on the oil cooler, which I feel would be restrictive in aviation = use, from=20 what I've heard. Might be good for taxiing = etc.

George ( down=20 under)

George;

I added = a fan=20 behind the coolant radiator; and found it had no detrimental effect = in=20 flight, and made a big improvement in cooling on the ground. = This is=20 on a pusher (Velocity) with = a ram=20 scoop. I expect it could make a difference depending on what = type of=20 fan and the effectiveness of the intake scoop.

Al=20 G

------=_NextPart_000_001F_01CA59F2.6A419100--