Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.52] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2983066 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Feb 2004 20:16:58 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 8 Feb 2004 17:16:57 -0800 Received: from 67.24.246.212 by bay3-dav22.bay3.hotmail.com with DAV; Mon, 09 Feb 2004 01:16:57 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.24.246.212] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] FD rads & Evap Cores Take 2 Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:16:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0011.2700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0002_01C3EE80.7FF60500" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2004 01:16:57.0332 (UTC) FILETIME=[69333340:01C3EEAA] ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C3EE80.7FF60500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Once again, nothing is ever simple. OK, here's my take on it. The evap. cores work well in a fast plane beca= use they can make efficient use of the 200 mph air entering the inlets. = This is a long and gory subject but to condense it to a one sentence rule= , I wouldn't use them on a slower plane or a car running under 140 mph. = You would not get sufficient pressure recovery in a car to make them wor= k well. The water spray in the race configuration (on my plane) was mainly for th= e oil cooler and that was mainly due to the poor inlet & ducting to it. = As it turned out, the race was on a cool day (62 deg F) and I didn't need= the water spray. I ran it during the last leg to see the effect. It dr= opped the oil temps about 15 degrees. Tracy ----- Original Message ----- From: peon@pacific.net.au Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 6:25 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] FD rads & Evap Cores Take 2 Hi Ed, Rusty, Thanks fo the replies guys. However, now you have got my mate =20 Wally (and me!) REALLY confused. (}:<) =20 You are touting that 2 Evap cores as being able to cool better than =20 an FD rad (plastic tanks aside), but having less drag. So should I =20 throw away the FD core (with alloy tanks) in the race car and =20 replace it with 2 evap cores? =20 Will I then have less drag??? Will the race car then go faster, or =20 have better fuel economy at the same speed (a very important =20 factor in endurance racing)? Wow, ... talk about a "racer's edge" =20 ... if it's true that is ... Does anybody REALLY know ... I mean =20 from a practical rather than just a "running the numbers" point of =20 view?? Cheers, Leon P.S. BTW, why did Tracy need to spray his evap cores with water =20 to keep the enigne from turning into kettle - in level flight and at =20 high speed no less (in an air race or so I have read)??? =20 e wouldn't have any more than 200 BHP would he?? If they won't =20 cool 200, how will they EVER cool 250?? The (lost) plot thickens, =20 .. almost to the point of being thixatrophic (}:>). >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C3EE80.7FF60500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Once again, no= thing is ever simple.

OK, here's my take on = it. The evap. cores work well in a fast plane because they can make= efficient use of the 200 mph air entering the inlets. This is a lo= ng and gory subject but to condense it to a one sentence rule, I wouldn't= use them on a slower plane or a car running under 140 mph. Y= ou would not get sufficient pressure recovery in a car to make them work = well.

The water spray in the race configurat= ion (on my plane) was mainly for the oil cooler and that was mainly = due to the poor inlet & ducting to it. As it turned out, the ra= ce was on a cool day (62 deg F) and I didn't need the water spray. = I ran it during the last leg to see the effect. It dropped the oil = temps about 15 degrees.

Tracy

&nb= sp;

----- Origi= nal Message -----

From: peon@pacific.net.au

Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 6:25 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] FD rads & E= vap Cores Take 2

Hi Ed, Rusty,

Thanks= fo the replies guys. However, now you have got my mate
W= ally (and me!) REALLY confused. (}:<)

You are tout= ing that 2 Evap cores as being able to cool better than
an FD rad (pl= astic tanks aside), but having less drag. So should I
thr= ow away the FD core (with alloy tanks) in the race car and
replace it= with 2 evap cores?

Will I then have less drag??? Will the = race car then go faster, or
have better fuel economy at the sam= e speed (a very important
factor in endurance racing)? Wow, ...= talk about a "racer's edge"
.... if it's true that is ... Does anybo= dy REALLY know ... I mean
from a practical rather than just a "runnin= g the numbers" point of
view??

Cheers,

Leon

P.S.= BTW, why did Tracy need to spray his evap cores with water <= BR>to keep the enigne from turning into kettle - in level flight and at <= BR>high speed no less (in an air race or so I have read)???

e wou= ldn't have any more than 200 BHP would he?? If they won't
cool = 200, how will they EVER cool 250?? The (lost) plot thickens, =
... almost to the point of being thixatrophic (}:>).

>&g= t; Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Arch= ive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_001_0002_01C3EE80.7FF60500--