Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:03:42 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-m16.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.206] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 819504 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:55:25 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.206; envelope-from=REHBINC@aol.com Received: from REHBINC@aol.com by imo-m16.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r5.33.) id q.ba.6e64ea77 (3924) for ; Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:54:35 -0500 (EST) From: REHBINC@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:54:34 EST Subject: Re: [LML] Re: superchargers X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1111712074" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5116 -------------------------------1111712074 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think we may have veered a little out of context on this intercooler debate. Back in the beginning, I responded to the following statement from George: "4) To get the air temperature back down to tolerable (detonation margins) ranges requires an intercooler" The points I was trying to get across were that an intercooler is not the only way to get around the detonation issue and that there isn't necessarily an issue to get around. I stand by both points still. I think plenty of evidence has been presented, showing that many successful airplanes have flown and due fly with superchargers and without intercoolers. Surely, we can accept that in some applications, detonation is not an issue. When compressed intake air does result in a detonation problem, is an intercooler the only way, or even the best way, to correct it? It is certainly not the only way. Whether or not it is the best way depends on the situation. If you are dealing with an add on compressor system, and you have the space, then it probably is. However, if the compressor is already operating at max flow for that boost, then an intercooler may actually result in less power and speed due to its pressure drop and the added cooling drag. If you are starting from scratch and have decided on a particular compressor and have no need for additional power or if the compressor lacks the capacity for additional mass flow, then other alternatives are available that may cost less. A combustion chamber modification could make the difference with no additional complexity. If you are really starting from scratch, you have to design a head anyway, so there is zero cost associated. An intercooler will add cost, complexity, size and weight to the design. I get the impression that some have taken the position that I think intercoolers are a bad idea. On the contrary. I stopped maturing at roughly 16 years of age. I am a huge fan of horsepower, acceleration and speed. In general, an intercooler permits increases in all three with minimal cost in efficiency. What's not to love? Ya'll have a happy Easter, Rob -------------------------------1111712074 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think we may have veered a little out of=20= context on this intercooler debate. Back in the beginning, I responded to th= e following statement from George:

"4) To get the ai= r temperature back down to tolerable (detonation
margins) ranges requires= an intercooler"

The points I was trying to get across were that an intercooler is not t= he only way to get around the detonation issue and that there isn't necessar= ily an issue to get around. I stand by both points still.

I think plenty of evidence has been presented, showing that many succes= sful airplanes have flown and due fly with superchargers and without in= tercoolers. Surely, we can accept that in some applications, detonation is n= ot an issue.

When compressed intake air does result in a detonation problem, is an i= ntercooler the only way, or even the best way, to correct it? It is cer= tainly not the only way. Whether or not it is the best way depends on the si= tuation. If you are dealing with an add on compressor system, and you h= ave the space, then it probably is. However, if the compressor is = already operating at max flow for that boost, then an intercooler may a= ctually result in less power and speed due to its pressure drop and the= added cooling drag.

If you are starting from scratch and have decided on a particular compr= essor and have no need for additional power or if the compressor lacks the c= apacity for additional mass flow, then other alternatives are available that= may cost less. A combustion chamber modification could make the difference=20= with no additional complexity. If you are really starting from scratch, you=20= have to design a head anyway, so there is zero cost associated. An intercool= er will add cost, complexity, size and weight to the design.

I get the impression that some have taken the position that I= think intercoolers are a bad idea. On the contrary. I stopped maturing= at roughly 16 years of age. I am a huge fan of horsepower, acceleration&nbs= p;and speed. In general, an intercooler permits increases in all three with=20= minimal cost in efficiency. What's not to love?

Ya'll have a happy Easter,

Rob

-------------------------------1111712074--