Return-Path: Received: from fed1mtao02.cox.net ([68.6.19.243] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2646357 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:04:11 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1mtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031022060409.GEZV27579.fed1mtao02.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 02:04:09 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: temps behind radiator? Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 23:04:13 -0700 Message-ID: <002301c39862$511f0430$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0024_01C39827.A4C02C30" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Importance: Normal In-reply-to: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C39827.A4C02C30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit This is rough estimating and assumes equal effectiveness of rad and cooler; but you get the idea. Al All Good points except that the oil cooler behind the rad *does* get maximum use out of every CFM of cooling air which is the ideal situation in aircraft. If it takes a bigger oil cooler, then so be it. Ever take a look at that 11" stack of heat exchangers in a P51? That is the biggest reason the plane could escort bombers all the way to & from Germany. Sorry, I'm going to bore everyone again with my favorite saying on this subject - "Remember, we are trying to build efficient *airplanes*, not efficient radiators." Point taken; but then, lower weight is more efficient, and lower pressure drop can equate to lower drag (efficiency) just as can a smaller amount of air taken on board. It's a trade off; and I won't begin to pretend to know which is best in this case. I do know that the importance of effective cooling outweighs a bit of airplane efficiency. (Darn, I knew I should have left out that bit about it being a bad idea:) Al ------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C39827.A4C02C30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
=

This is rough estimating and assumes equal effectiveness of rad and cooler; = but you get the idea.

 

Al

 

All Good points except that the oil cooler behind the rad *does* get maximum = use out of every CFM of cooling air which is the ideal situation in = aircraft.  If it takes a bigger oil cooler, then so be it.  Ever take a look = at that 11" stack of heat exchangers in a P51?   That is the = biggest reason the plane could escort bombers all the way to & from = Germany.  

 

Sorry, I'm going to bore everyone again with my favorite saying on this subject = - "Remember, we are trying to build efficient *airplanes*, not = efficient radiators."

 

Point taken; but then, lower weight is more efficient, and lower pressure drop can = equate to lower drag (efficiency) just as can a smaller amount of air taken on board.  It’s a trade off; and I won’t begin to pretend = to know which is best in this case.  I do know that the importance of = effective cooling outweighs a bit of airplane efficiency.  (Darn, I knew I = should have left out that bit about it being a bad idea:)

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0024_01C39827.A4C02C30--