Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 11:15:48 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtprelay1.dc3.adelphia.net ([24.50.78.4] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b8) with ESMTP id 1798347 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 09:37:31 -0400 Received: from worldwinds ([207.175.254.66]) by smtprelay1.dc3.adelphia.net (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id H3IGII06.00D for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 09:37:30 -0400 From: "Gary Casey" X-Original-To: "lancair list" Subject: cooling X-Original-Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 06:35:33 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 <> Well, yes, no, maybe and probably not. As an engineer I object to people giving human qualities to inanimate objects. An engine is nothing more than a collection of iron, aluminum and bolts - it has absolutely no clue what it was "designed for." While the designers certainly designed it to last as long as possible under all conditions forever is a long time. And since higher temperatures reduce strength and creep qualities it can be expected that running at higher temps and pressures will reduce engine life. And, yes, installing a 1.5 inch "leak" in the cowling will reduce efficiency, but as George says, it can show that it doesn't effect cooling all that much. However, there isn't "too much air coming in" as all the air that comes in goes out and the objective is to make sure that all the air that does flow through does something useful. It is a sign that the air inlets are too large for that particular operating condition. At low speeds the engine might want the extra inlet area. Maybe. Also, I find it interesting how much attention is usually paid to inlet area (except for Lancairs, it seems). A properly designed inlet doesn't reduce efficiency by much if it is too large as the pressure in front of it will just push air around the sides and if they are generously radiused there will be very little associated drag. The Lancair cowl is a good example of this. One of the fastest piston engined planes built at the time was the Corsair and look at the huge cooling inlet. The cowling was radiused to provide for a smooth flow around the outside and that is what mattered. The prop hub was then in a relatively stagnant area and thus didn't need a spinner. Just some observations Gary Casey ES