Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #5005
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Evap cores
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 23:11:02 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
 
Damit Tracy, don't get me started thinking about this :-)  Has anyone tried using one of these for oil yet?  Certainly the pressure should be OK.  Arrrrrgh...
 
Rusty (not flying again soon, but certainly before Tracy's RV-8 <g>) 
 
 
I am using one for an oil cooler, mounted up in the nose cowl. I have not yet flown, but cooled great on ground run ups. Never went over 180 in the pan even when water temp went to 230.
Lonnie
 
 
Sorry to stir the pot Rusty!   But, Glad to hear the evap core is working well on the ground for oil cooling Lonnie.   The main reason I want to use one is for the more efficient use of the dynamic pressure  available at flight speeds.  The stock coolers work well but I think they require more CFM to do the job.   Minimizing cooling drag  (as many of you are tired of hearing me preach : ) is largely a mater of minimizing CFM used to do the job.  
 
 When I get the time, I want to correlate the excellent data that Ed has been sharing with how I think cooling drag works.   Some of it is counterintuitive.    For example,  minimizing aircraft cooling drag can often mean increasing the turbulence  (drag)  through the heat exchanger.
 
Tracy Crook
 
I'll be interested to hear your theories, Tracy.  For one thing it appears that once you trip the boundary layer into turbulent flow, you have encountered 75-80% of the drag you are going to encounter.  Adding more inches after that point does little to increase drag further.  Drag is proportional to frontal area as we all know, so that would also support the thicker (rather than larger) is better for cooling (in our application where we do have higher dynamic pressure to work for us).
 
  Also my calculations indicates that the evaporator core has much less drag than one might think based on its thickness. Most heat exchangers of the type used as radiators have a openness ratio of around .70 - 75 while my measures and calculations shows the GM cores has an openness ratio of around 0.81 further indicating less air resistance.
 
If you think about it, it makes sense there would not be much resistance to air flow in the core as it has a puny electric motor in the car to force air through it, so it is undoubtedly designed not to have much air resistance. 
So I wanna' hear your story
 
Ed Anderson
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster