X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-gh0-f180.google.com ([209.85.160.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c2) with ESMTPS id 5839915 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:01:00 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.160.180; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com Received: by mail-gh0-f180.google.com with SMTP id f19so52267ghb.25 for ; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:00:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:references:from:content-type:x-mailer:in-reply-to :message-id:date:to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=G36KIW2j+WNxTnRycaklBNp130neQIXr8fdjoAUdFiI=; b=QPyudyYcezzC9MMPNwGHh9SGr/pfE7uh09Zdra+dFbWgeo+mwYPaO5N4kgtnzVZGPk c7e58IUNT3FKj/KQQnUA061Y7p1prR0NWy4FzboeorOKZg3Xm6X2gECyqcNKB64ZopYc gdmHNf1QAwTwUFgflA6KX8KFx8ILcN0iSQXWhDfFf2FS8woFwGPPW5+xBmKXkJFEhQpv EgH0wc+vg+l6KRsAFV4O/7aoxADSm7T387pwpW9lhYevRSa3oRMKPX7JA7+AAVnp2uke nn318v8U7owtRtk3+LBLHW9wg3W6FGzysYwI4vR3CVbZcOXOdsXV/fmUxEjg9DecDNh6 x1OQ== Received: by 10.101.151.28 with SMTP id d28mr4504079ano.59.1351083624497; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [192.168.10.18] (adsl-98-95-189-156.jan.bellsouth.net. [98.95.189.156]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e24sm14712789yhh.4.2012.10.24.06.00.19 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:00:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator References: From: Charlie E Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1D389930-D142-4037-B4AA-DD6763581F2B X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A403) In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <82CAE33B-69E9-4409-B61B-C0CC4291197B@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:00:17 -0500 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) --Apple-Mail-1D389930-D142-4037-B4AA-DD6763581F2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable OK, actual: 13.75" H between tanks, ~14.25" W including protective rails on s= ides, 2.25" thick protective rails (actual core slightly less). So slightly u= nder 440 cu in.=20 17.75 bottom of tank to top of filler cap. 14.5 max width. 2.5 max thick. Mo= unt studs ~1" on bottom. Charlie Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Charlie England wrote: > It came from CX Racing; I'm pretty sure that this is it: > http://www.ebay.com/itm/290600743649?ssPageName=3DSTRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=3D= p3984.m1423.l2649 >=20 > I wrote the actual core dimensions on the rad, but they are now covered wi= th protective tape for making the duct. IIRC, the core is roughly 14x14x2 1/= 2, around 450 cu in. (Yes, I know that the math doesn't 'multiply up'.) Don'= t trust the numbers in the link; I think that they include the tanks. I pick= ed it based on having a bit more than 2/3 of Tracy's core volume (2 rotor vs= 3 rotor). >=20 > I'll try to get you the actual core dimensions tomorrow. >=20 > Thanks for the feedback on the flyin. I learned a lot, too, & we had a gre= at time hosting. Y'all were wonderful house guests. Tupper's already asking a= bout doing one 'next year'.=20 >=20 > Charlie >=20 >=20 > On 10/23/2012 06:53 PM, DALE HARVEY wrote: >> Hi Charlie, what size is your rad and where did you get it? I will have t= he same set-up as you pretty much. >> =20 >> Dale Harvey >> =20 >> PS. thanks for having a great fly-in, got some good ideas! >> =20 >> To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net >> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:27:04 -0500 >> From: ceengland7@gmail.com >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator >>=20 >> Here are a couple of low res images (list limits on size; if bigger are n= eeded, I'll send in separate emails). Basically the same config as Tracy's = -8, except a downflow rad instead of crossflow dual pass. Bottom o= f rad is several inches below bottom of engine; top is roughly even with or s= lightly above the water pump height. >>=20 >> I can see Mark's point about reversing the flow in this configuration; if= coolant drops below the level of the rad's top tank, the pump will be sucki= ng air. In a coolant loss situation, it might only buy a couple of minutes, b= ut could still be the difference between a safe/unsafe landing spot. >>=20 >> If I move the pressure cap to the swirl pot, there really isn't any reaso= n to reverse the flow. >>=20 >> Charlie >>=20 >> On 10/23/2012 05:44 AM, Mark Steitle wrote: >> Bill,=20 >>=20 >> 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 yo= u're drawing off the upper tank. Of course, if the radiator is located belo= w 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 r= adiator. If you have a coolant leak in flight, you'll benefit from more tim= e to get on the ground rather than less.=20 >>=20 >> I don't see where it makes any difference which tank you return the coola= nt 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 t= hat's how I understand it. >>=20 >> In the end its Charlie's decision. >>=20 >> Mark >>=20 >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Bill Schertz wro= te: >> I guess that I don=E2=80=99t understand this (Mark=E2=80=99s) comment. I a= m assuming that the radiator is lower than the water pump in any circumstanc= e, since in general it is either below the engine, or on the side like Tracy= =E2=80=99s. The Mazda pump is very high, and any loss of coolant will cause l= oss of prime if air gets in the pump, but whether the outlet of the pump goe= s to the bottom of the radiator, or the top, I don=E2=80=99t see the differe= nce. What am I missing? >> =20 >> Bill Schertz >> KIS Cruiser #4045 >> N343BS >> Phase one testing Completed >> =20 >> From: Mark Steitle >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator >> =20 >> Charlie,=20 >> =20 >> So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you get a little low on c= oolant? My guess is the pump will start pumping air along with the coolant,= and eventually loose prime altogether and the remaining coolant will stop f= lowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-over. This may be why auto m= akers favor the top-down flow design. The Mazda's water pump is already ver= y high up on the engine. I wouldn't want to aggravate this even more. Also= , the cross-flow design doesn't suffer this failure mode, assuming you draw f= rom the lower hole. >> =20 >> Mark S. =20 >>=20 >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Schertz wrot= e: >> Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system pressure limi= ted to 10 psi on the expansion bottle. When the engine is running, the press= ure measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a function of R= PM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in the exp= ansion bottle). >> =20 >> Having the flow enter the bottom of the radiator and out the top, then go= ing to the inlet of the pump sounds = like a good way to avoid problems. >> =20 >> Bill Schertz >> KIS Cruiser #4045 >> N343BS >> Phase one testing Completed >> =20 >> From: Ben Haas >> Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM >> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator >> =20 >> Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiator I can't imagi= ne there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system pressure caused by= pump output. As for the r= everse flow, ie, bottom to top,,, It's called counter flow, and yes it can w= ork. My set up has worked flawlessly for 500 hours and I use the Moroso swir= l / pressure tank and a air bleed line from the output of the radiator... A= bout 3 minutes into this video shows my set up..... >> =20 >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPD= skKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5YSUfu >>=20 >> Ben Haas >> www.haaspowerair.com >>=20 >> =20 >> To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net >> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0500 >> From: ceengland7@gmail.com >> Subject: [FlyRotary] flow path in conventional radiator >>=20 >> I've been doing research on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment' will be a co= nventionally configured radiator (downflow design) with inlet & pressure cap= on top. In reading about issues with conventional radiators, a common compl= aint is pressure venting due to the water pump + system pressure exceeding t= he cap's rating. Crossflow types like the Sirocco are supposed to avoid this= because the cap is at the mid-point in the flow through the rad, which drop= s some of the pressure seen by the = cap.=20 >>=20 >> Here's my question: Is there = any reason a conventional rad can't be fed from the bottom, in= stead of the top? This would achieve similar effect as the crossflow cap loc= ation (all the way to the end of the flow path) & any air could be vented us= ing the existing fittings. I'm also considering the removal of the spring lo= aded seal, & moving the pressure cap function to a separate swirl can. By do= ing this, the existing over-pressure port could function as the air removal p= ort in the top tank of the radiator. >>=20 >>=20 >> What am I missing? >>=20 >> Thanks, >>=20 >> Charlie=20 >> =20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lan= caironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html >=20 --Apple-Mail-1D389930-D142-4037-B4AA-DD6763581F2B Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
OK, actual: 13.75" H between tanks, ~1= 4.25" W including protective rails on sides, 2.25" thick protective rails (a= ctual core slightly less). So slightly under 440 cu in. 

=
17.75 bottom of tank to top of filler cap. 14.5 max width. 2.5 ma= x thick. Mount studs ~1" on bottom.

Charlie

= Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 23, 2012, at 7:31 PM, Charlie Engla= nd <ceengland7@gmail.com> w= rote:

=20 =20 =20
It came from CX Racing; I'm pretty sure that this is it:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/290600743649?s= sPageName=3DSTRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=3Dp3984.m1423.l2649

I wrote the actual core dimensions on the rad, but they are now covered with protective tape for making the duct. IIRC, the core is roughly 14x14x2 1/2, around 450 cu in. (Yes, I know that the math doesn't 'multiply up'.) Don't trust the numbers in the link; I think that they include the tanks. I picked it based on having a bit more than 2/3 of Tracy's core volume (2 rotor vs 3 rotor).

I'll try to get you the actual core dimensions tomorrow.

Thanks for the feedback on the flyin. I learned a lot, too, & we had a great time hosting. Y'all were wonderful house guests. Tupper's already asking about doing one 'next year'.

Charlie


On 10/23/2012 06:53 PM, DALE HARVEY wrote:
Hi Charlie, what size is your rad and where did you get it? I will have the same set-up as you pretty much.
 
Dale Harvey
 
PS. thanks for having a great fly-in, got some good ideas!
 
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 09:27:04 -0500
From: ceengland7@gmail.com
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator

Here are a couple of low res images (list limits on size; if bigger are needed, I'll send in separate emails). Basically the same config as Tracy's -8, except a downflow rad instead of crossflow dual pass. Bottom of rad is several inches below bottom of engine; top is roughly even with or slightly above the water pump height.

I can see Mark's point about reversing the flow in this configuration; if coolant drops below the level of the rad's top tank, the pump will be sucking air. In a coolant loss situation, it might only buy a couple of minutes, but could still be the difference between a safe/unsafe landing spot.

If I move the pressure cap to the swirl pot, there really isn't any reason to reverse the flow.

Charlie

On 10/23/2012 05:44 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 sens= e 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

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:
I guess that I don=E2=80=99t understand this (Mark=E2=80=99s) comment. I am assuming that the radiator is lower than the water pump in any circumstance, since in general it is either below the engine, or on the side like Tracy=E2=80=99= s. The Mazda pump is very high, and any loss of coolant will cause loss of prime if air gets in the pump, but whether the outlet of the pump goes to the bottom of the radiator, or the top, I don=E2=80=99t see the difference. What a= m I missing?
 
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 6:25 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator
=
 
Charl= ie, 
 
So, with the bottom-up flow what what happens if you get a little low on coolant?  My guess is the pump will start pumping air along with the coolant, and eventually loose prime altogether and the remaining coolant will stop flowing, followed shortly by a catastrophic boil-over.  This may be wh= y auto makers favor the top-down flow design.  The Mazda's water pump is already very high up on the engine.  I wouldn't want to aggravate this even more.  Also, the cross-flow design doesn't suffer this failure mode, assuming you draw from the lower hole.
=
 
Mark S.   

On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:
Charlie, I am using two evap cores in parallel, with system pressure limited to 10 psi on the expansion bottle. When the engine is running, the pressure measured at the inlet to the cores (exit of the pump) is a function of RPM and can rise to as much as 20 psi (10 psi over system pressure in the expansion bottle).
 
Having the flow enter the bottom of the radiator and out the top, then going to the inlet of the pump sounds like a good way to avoid problems.
 
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Phase one testing Completed
 
From: Ben Haas
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 1:06 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: flow path in conventional radiator
 
Unless there is a serious restriction through the radiator  I can't= imagine there would be anything greater then 1 psi over system pressure caused by pump output.  As for the reverse flow, ie, bottom to top,,, It's called counter flow, and yes it can work. My set up has worked flawlessly for 500 hours and I use the Moroso swirl / pressure tank and a air bleed line from the output of the radiator...  About 3 minutes into this video shows my set up.....
 
http://www.youtube.co= m/watch?v=3DrCNnEgRkdXc&context=3DC3e091d3ADOEgsToPDskKmHo69I6bUDuoBHd5Y= SUfu

Ben Haas
ww= w.haaspowerair.com

 
To: flyrotary@lancairon= line.net
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:40:11 -0500
From: ceengland7@gmail.com
Subject: [FlyRotary] flow path in conventional radiator

I've be= en doing research on radiators, & my 1st 'experiment' will be a conventionally configured radiator (downflow design) with inlet & pressure cap on top. In reading about issues with conventional radiators, a common complaint is pressure venting due to the water pump + system pressure exceeding the cap's rating. Crossflow types like the = Sirocco are supposed to avoid this because the cap is at the mid-point in the flow through the rad, which drops some of the pressure seen by the cap.

= Here's my question: Is there any reason a conventional rad can't be fed from the bottom, instead of the top? This would achieve similar effect as the crossflow cap location (all the way to the end of the flow path) & any air could be vented using the existing fittings. I'm also considering the removal of the spring loaded seal, & moving the pressure cap function to a separate swirl can. By doing this, the existing over-pressure port could function as the air removal port in the top tank of the radiator.


= What am I missing?

= Thanks,

= Charlie
 



-- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/= flyrotary/List.html

=20
= --Apple-Mail-1D389930-D142-4037-B4AA-DD6763581F2B--