Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 09:07:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [64.8.50.202] (HELO mta10.adelphia.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1b4) with ESMTP id 2334969 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 06 May 2003 08:59:58 -0400 Received: from worldwinds ([207.175.254.66]) by mta10.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.05.32 201-253-122-126-132-20030307) with SMTP id <20030506125953.THZI25202.mta10.adelphia.net@worldwinds> for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 08:59:53 -0400 From: "Gary Casey" X-Original-To: "lancair list" Subject: oil cooler air flow X-Original-Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 06:00:10 -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 V6.00.2800.1106 <> Looks like you've done the right things. Just as an observation, I have seen lots of cooling attempts, including those on (most?) certified aircraft that seem to have ignored the air flow half of the equation. You have to have uniform air flow across the face of the cooler to get maximum cooling effect. That takes, as described above, a diverging duct in front of the cooler - or excessive cooling drag will be the result. Three choices - inadequate cooling, excessive drag, or a good divergent inlet. Along with an efficient inlet scoop in a good air flow location, of course. Gary Casey