Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 10:23:14 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-d07.mx.aol.com ([205.188.157.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8) with ESMTP id 1792333 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:19:08 -0400 Received: from Newlan2dl@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.186.edc9aa3 (17079) for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:19:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Newlan2dl@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <186.edc9aa3.2ac5b4c6@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 09:19:02 EDT Subject: Re: [LML] Re: V8 engines X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10637 I won't get into the watercooled vs. aircooled engine quagmire except to say that differential expansion due to differing amounts of heat cause asymetric expansion in the engine and thus make the cylinders "non-cylindrical". One engine monitor company I spoke to had measured the differential in heat in one installation that had a 100 degree F difference from the (right side) sensor on the 2 o'clock than the 10 o'clock, (the higher temp). This would vary from plane to plane but the point is that the aircooled engines all will have a larger difference from the hot areas to the cool and the Tg is going to play Havock with the differences between the two. I too was pretty smug in how "superior" I used to feel with our existing technology compared to the 50 year old basic engine designs that planes still use now. Until I got into it a bit more and realised those guys back then had a lot on the ball! Dan Newland ES#61