Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.138.90.84; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <508698B9.1050706@att.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:16:41 -0400
From: Ernest Chrisltey <echristley@att.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator
References: <list-5837868@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5837868@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------040906000105000501050900"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040906000105000501050900
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 10/23/2012 06:44 AM, Mark Steitle wrote:
> Bill,
>
> Since Charlie hasn't posted any pictures or sketches of his design, I 
> was referencing more what you'll find in auto installations than in 
> a/c.  Still the principles are the same, namely that the coolant 
> naturally flows to the bottom and air goes to the top.  If it gets low 
> enough, the pump will begin sucking air and will soon loose prime. 
>  This will happen much quicker if you're drawing off the upper tank. 
>  Of course, if the radiator is located below the engine it will take 
> longer for this to happen than if it is beside the engine because the 
> air pocket will be inside the engine rather than in the radiator.  If 
> you have a coolant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more time to 
> get on the ground rather than less.
>
> I don't see where it makes any difference which tank you _return_ the 
> coolant to, but when supplying the pump, any air will risk loss of 
> prime.  So, it makes sense to me to draw from the bottom and return to 
> the top.  At least that's how I understand it.
>
>  In the end its Charlie's decision.
>
Mark,

My installation is done and is working, so I don't see myself making 
great efforts to change it around; but this makes so much sense that 
I'll rearrange it if I ever have to rework it in the future.  The 
downside to this arrangement is that it will be much more difficult to 
remove entrapped air from the system if there isn't a bleed in the line.

--------------040906000105000501050900
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/23/2012 06:44 AM, Mark Steitle
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:list-5837868@logan.com" type="cite">Bill, 
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Since Charlie hasn't posted any pictures or sketches of his
        design, I was referencing more what you'll find in auto
        installations than in a/c.  Still the principles are the same,
        namely that the coolant naturally flows to the bottom and air
        goes to the top.  If it gets low enough, the pump will begin
        sucking air and will soon loose prime.  This will happen much
        quicker if you're drawing off the upper tank.  Of course, if the
        radiator is located below the engine it will take longer for
        this to happen than if it is beside the engine because the air
        pocket will be inside the engine rather than in the radiator.
         If you have a coolant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more
        time to get on the ground rather than less. </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>I don't see where it makes any difference which tank you <u>return</u>
        the coolant to, but when supplying the pump, any air will risk
        loss of prime.  So, it makes sense to me to draw from the bottom
        and return to the top.  At least that's how I understand it.</div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div> In the end its Charlie's decision.</div>
      <br>
    </blockquote>
    Mark, <br>
    <br>
    My installation is done and is working, so I don't see myself making
    great efforts to change it around; but this makes so much sense that
    I'll rearrange it if I ever have to rework it in the future.  The
    downside to this arrangement is that it will be much more difficult 
    to remove entrapped air from the system if there isn't a bleed in
    the line.<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------040906000105000501050900--