Return-Path: Received: from fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com ([66.185.86.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2925374 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 16:20:47 -0500 Received: from CR754193A ([24.43.221.42]) by fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com (InterMail vM.5.01.05.12 201-253-122-126-112-20020820) with ESMTP id <20040109211825.XNNI23685.fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com@CR754193A> for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:18:25 -0500 From: "Neil Kruiswyk" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Series vs parralel rads Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:20:44 -0500 Message-ID: <000401c3d6f6$7191b820$6402a8c0@CR754193A> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D6CC.88BBB020" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2616 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH LOGIN at fep01-mail.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com from [24.43.221.42] using ID at Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:18:25 -0500 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D6CC.88BBB020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm with Lynn on thinking there would only be a 1-2% benefit provided one were to get the flow to split absolutely equally between 2 rads. I just have to find the right math to prove the point. Dusty brain cells remind me of "Log mean delta T" but I'll have to go digging deeper. As far as complexity, series wins hands down. Jim converted from parallel to series and in the process lost 10lbs of weight, over 2 qts of excess coolant (in the extra hoses), a ball valve, 4 sections of hose and 16 clamps!!! Lynn brings up a good point in that series rads are the same as a cross flow single rad. N -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson Sent: January 9, 2004 7:36 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Series vs parralel rads Thanks, Neil, Yes, I recall the effort Jim (and you) made trying to get parallel cores to flow evenly. My personal opinion is that if using evaporator cores with an NA 13B then plumbing them in series saves weight and complexity. If on the otherhand, you are need all the cooling you can get (turbocharged perhaps), then parallel cores may be required. Both clearly work if designed and set up properly. Now if I could only produce so much power that I would be forced to go to parallel {:>) Ed Anderson ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D6CC.88BBB020 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

        = ;    I’m with Lynn on thinking there would only be a 1-2% benefit provided one = were to get the flow to split absolutely equally between 2 rads.  I just have to find the right = math to prove the point.  Dusty = brain cells remind me of  “Log mean delta T” but I’ll have to go digging = deeper.

 

        = ;    As far as complexity, series wins hands down.  Jim converted from parallel to series and in the process lost = 10lbs of weight, over 2 qts of excess coolant (in the = extra hoses), a ball valve, 4 sections of hose and 16 clamps!!! 

 

Lynn brings up a good point in that series rads are the same as a cross flow single = rad.

 =

N

 

---= --Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Ed Anderson
Sent: = Jan= uary 9, 2004 = 7:3= 6 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Series vs parralel rads

 


Thanks, Neil,

    Yes, I recall the effort Jim (and you) made trying to = get parallel cores to flow evenly.  My personal opinion is that if = using evaporator cores with an NA 13B then
plumbing them in series saves weight and complexity.  If on the = otherhand, you are need all the cooling you can get (turbocharged perhaps), then = parallel cores may be required.  Both clearly work if  designed and set = up properly.  Now if I could only produce so much power that I would = be forced to go to parallel {:>)

Ed Anderson        
           
 

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C3D6CC.88BBB020--