X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTP id 2185731 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:47:07 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Jul 2007 15:46:09 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ao8CAF8KnkZAZnme/2dsb2JhbAA X-IronPort-AV: i="4.16,552,1175486400"; d="scan'208"; a="126414818:sNHT33964878" Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l6IJk8Qr017666 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:46:08 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l6IJk4Wu024561 for ; Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:46:08 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:46:08 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.160] ([64.102.38.160]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:46:08 -0400 Message-ID: <469E6E01.60203@nc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 15:46:09 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070403) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil cooler inlet References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2007 19:46:08.0314 (UTC) FILETIME=[491969A0:01C7C974] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Al Gietzen wrote: > My concern about the diverter as you have it shown is that it is trying to > compress the air and speed it up. It seems to me that any convergence there > would choke the flow of the already low energy air - you think? > > Yes. But that is the only way you're going to speed up the air in that portion of the duct. Note that you're using energy to speed it up. That energy is drawn from the available dynamic pressure, and it is being robbed from the energy that was going to the lower portion of the cooler. You're making the bottom of the cooler a little "less effective" in order to raise the top part up from "completely useless". > I was thinking of making the vanes with fiberglass; and glassing them in. > But you're right; an adjustable vane would be the way to go, but it does > complicate life. Without taking the wing off and removing the cooler, I > have to work in through the scoop opening. The scoop has two vertical > divider/supports meaning I need three separate vanes. I'll figure out a way > to attach to those. > I would start by just working with the center portion. Grab the low hanging fruit. You may be full before its all gone. Working from the pictures you've posted, the way I'd go about it is to use the 90-degree drill attachment I bought at Harbor Freight to put four 3/16" holes in the two vertical dividers. Bend a length of aluminum to loosely fit, slide it in to one extreme position and mark the holes. Move it to the other extreme and mark the holes again. Use a drill-saw (drill bit with saw-like teeth) to cut slots connecting the four sets of two holes. Chuck a socket adapter into the 90-degree drill fitting, since getting something in there to turn a nut will be tricky in that narrow of an opening. If it doesn't work, remove the aluminum and you have four 3/16" holes to fill, sand and paint. If it does work, remove the wing at your leisure.