Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 595618 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 08 Jan 2005 10:43:26 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.38; envelope-from=daveleonard@cox.net Received: from davidandanne ([68.111.224.107]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with SMTP id <20050108154255.ERGA5137.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@davidandanne> for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:42:55 -0500 From: "DaveLeonard" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Coolant Flow was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oi/water Exchanger Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 07:45:04 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Oh, now that makes sense. Leon to the rescue again. BTW, my previous post was supposed to be a reason for not using an exchanger, not so much a request for a solution. But now with your input it could be feasible IF, like Ed says, your installation really only has room for a large Rad but not an oil cooler. Dave Leonard > The Mazda one > will work just as efficiently if you feed it with water from the COLD side > of the rad. It's a really robust unit, and I've never seen one leak. > > Hope this clarifies the situation ... > > Cheers, > > Leon > > P.S. > I get my cold water under pressure by drilling & tapping into the > water pump > housing just before it goes into the block. Works a treat!! > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 12:46 PM > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oi/water Exchanger [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil > cooler > > > > I was considering the idea when I was planning my installation > and one big > question kept popping into my mind: which side of the rad do you put the > interchanger? > > > > If you put the interchanger on the hot water coming out of the > block, that > water is at least 180deg. This hot water will have a very hard > time cooling > that oil, and best case could only get it down to 190 or 200. > Likewise the > water is likely to boil before it get to the radiator since it is starting > at 180 (at least) and going up from there. > > > > If you put the interchanger after the radiator it will probably > do a good > job of cooling the oil, but now you will be heating the water right before > it goes back into the engine. In order to keep the water from overheating > in the engine it will have to come out of the heat exchanger relatively > cool, which mean it has to come out of the rad really cool. To > get it that > cold comming out of the rad that cold (assuming you had a big enough rad), > the temperature gradient really has to drop and the rad becomes very > inefficient as it is trying to cool the coolant that extra 20 deg. > > > > I decided the only efficient way to do it was to have two rads, > one after > the interchanger and one before it. I suppose that would work if you were > using 2 evap cores in series, but for me the obvious solution was > to use an > oil/air cooler. > > > > Dave Leonard > > > > > > > > Good points of course, but I still can't help but be drawn to the > simplicity > > > of having only one scoop, one duct, and one radiator. Even as I type, > I'm > > > trying to figure out where I can put a bigger radiator > (within cosmetic > > > limits this time) :-) I'm even warming back up (so to > speak) to the > idea > > > of using the stock 1st gen oil/water exchanger for the single > rotor. It > was > > > pointed out to me that the stock unit took hot water from the heater > outlet, > > > which doesn't really give the heat exchanger the best chance > of success. > > > > > > If I get Ken's oil/water exchanger, I'll be mighty tempted to > hook it up > to > > > the current two radiators to see how it does on the ground. Since I'm > not > > > opposed to changing out the evap cores, there might be a way > to enlarge > the > > > capacity some. Barring all that, it'll make a nice paperweight. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Rusty (now collecting oil coolers instead of manifolds) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > > > > >> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > >> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html