X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net ([204.127.192.81] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1094761 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 May 2006 19:50:24 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.192.81; envelope-from=wschertz@comcast.net Received: from rmailcenter17.comcast.net ([204.127.197.127]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with SMTP id <20060506234940m1100o3tvue>; Sat, 6 May 2006 23:49:40 +0000 Received: from [24.7.194.200] by rmailcenter17.comcast.net; Sat, 06 May 2006 23:49:39 +0000 From: wschertz@comcast.net To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: oil cooler lines Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 23:49:39 +0000 Message-Id: <050620062349.252.445D361300090B94000000FC2205889116969B9D0A080C9C99@comcast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Apr 11 2006) X-Authenticated-Sender: d3NjaGVydHpAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_252_1146959379_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_252_1146959379_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Maybe -- maybe not. The hydraulic resistance for the two flow paths may be different, then the flows will not be the same. I have mine plumbed parallel, and took pains to make all hose connections equal length. We will see when I get it started whether it works as planned. Bill Schertz -------------- Original message -------------- From: Bulent Aliev > 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 > > > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_252_1146959379_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Maybe -- maybe not. The hydraulic resistance for the two flow paths may be different, then the flows will not be the same.
 
I have mine plumbed parallel, and took pains to make all hose connections equal length. We will see when I get it started whether it works as planned.
 
Bill Schertz
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Bulent Aliev <atlasyts@bellsouth.net>

> 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.
> > Jus t 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
> > & gt; > 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_252_1146959379_0--