X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1094745 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 May 2006 19:19:05 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.66; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm61aec.bellsouth.net ([65.11.50.61]) by imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060506231822.CGAZ29443.imf18aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm61aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 19:18:22 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] (really [65.11.50.61]) by ibm61aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20060506231821.NFI25390.ibm61aec.bellsouth.net@[192.168.0.100]> for ; Sat, 6 May 2006 19:18:21 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v749.3) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bulent Aliev Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oil cooler lines Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 19:20:57 -0400 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.749.3) Bill, I would think they will even out by equalizing the back pressure from the cooler? Buly On May 6, 2006, at 9:24 AM, wschertz@comcast.net wrote: > Buly, > You are correct that parallel coolers will be more efficient, IF > the liquid flow through the coolers are the same. > Bill Schertz > > -------------- Original message -------------- > From: Bulent Aliev > > > I believe parallel coolers will be more efficient due to the higher > > delta T. In a serial set up, the liquid in the second cooler will be > > lower temp. and less efficient heat transfer will take place. > Just an > > opinion of an eyeball engineer? > > Buly > > On May 5, 2006, at 11:34 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote: > > > > > Bob, > > > One other comment........There is some difference of opinion > > > among the group > > > whether connecting coolers (oil or coolent) in series (as you > > > propose) or in > > > parallel is the most efficient method.........We have group > members > > > currently > > > flying with both methods........Most that I am aware of that use > > > both methods > &g t; > are for coolent systems as not many are using two oil > > > coolers........I personally > > > lean toward a parallel coolent system........Any comments from > > > others in the > > > group about this question would be welcome as I know we have > > > several with > > > experience or training in this area !! What would be most > efficient > > > for one > > > system should probably apply to the other.......IMHO > > > -- > > > Kelly Troyer > > > Dyke Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------- Original message from kenpowell@comcast.net: > > > -------------- > > > > > > Bob, > > > I think you should have made the lines larger to help lower > presure > > > drop in the long lines. I understand that the extra oil in the > > > lines will be heavy but the pressure drop would be a tradeoff that > > > I wouldn't want to make. > > > > > > Ken Powell > > > Bryant, Arkansas > > > 501-847-4721 > > > C150 / RV-4 under construction > > > > > > -------------- Original message -------------- > > > From: BMears9413@aol.com > > > I'm running two oil coolers in the Spitfire. Due to the lengthe of > > > the lines and volume of the two coolers I reduced my oil lines to > > > AN8 (I think stock they were 10?) Now, before I close > everything up > > > I'm having second guessing. My total line length will be around > > > 12'. I had planned on running the lines to one oil cooler, then > the > > > other, then back to the motor. > > > Any comments? > > > > > > Bob Mears > > > > Buly > > http://tinyurl.com/dcy36 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > > Archive and UnSub: http://ma il.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ Buly http://tinyurl.com/dcy36