Return-Path: Received: from corpprd-pxy2.canfor.ca ([198.162.160.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2925484 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:46:02 -0500 Received: from exchange.canfor.ca (mail.canfor.ca [198.162.162.49]) by corpprd-pxy2.canfor.ca (Build 103 8.9.3p2/NT-8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14209 for ; Fri, 09 Jan 2004 14:46:00 -0800 Received: by mail.canfor.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:46:00 -0800 Message-ID: <1F17B59A61D4194095359264D24D22A2708C1C@mailman.canfor.ca> From: "Bartrim, Todd" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Series vs parallel rads Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:45:14 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C3D702.3F16EF80" This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D702.3F16EF80 Content-Type: text/plain > 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!!! > This doesn't necessarily apply in every case. I planned my parallel installation very carefully to ensure minimum weight and even flow and honestly believe I achieved it at no extra cost in weight. I have the shortest possible runs of hose, but if I went to a series configuration I would have to lengthen the inlet hose considerably in order to route it around the turbocharger and intercooler. This is not to argue that parallel is better than series, but only to point out that with proper planning, weight doesn't have to be a factor. S. Todd Bartrim Turbo 13B RX-9endurance C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "Imagination is more important than knowledge" -Albert Einstein ------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D702.3F16EF80 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Series vs parallel rads

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!!! 

        This doesn't necessarily apply in every case. I = planned my parallel installation very carefully to ensure minimum = weight and even flow and honestly believe I achieved it at no extra = cost in weight. I have the shortest possible runs of hose, but if I = went to a series configuration I would have to lengthen the inlet hose = considerably in order to route it around the turbocharger and = intercooler.

        This is not to argue that parallel is better = than series, but only to point out that with proper planning, weight = doesn't have to be a factor.

S. Todd Bartrim
Turbo 13B
RX-9endurance
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm

        "Imagination is more important than = knowledge"
        =         =         =         =         -Albert Einstein


------_=_NextPart_001_01C3D702.3F16EF80--