Return-Path: Received: from imo27.mx.aol.com ([198.81.17.71]) by truman.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c) ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with ESMTP id AAA27334 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:48:25 -0500 Received: from ReganRanch@aol.com by imo27.mx.aol.com (IMOv16.10) id 8XVRa02195 for ; Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:44:17 -0500 (EST) From: ReganRanch@aol.com Message-ID: <3be7bd17.3662cb61@aol.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 11:44:17 EST To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Subject: LIV-P Heat X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> In a message dated 98-11-30 02:17:06 EST, Michael D Smith writes: << I just don't like the thought of porting overboard turbo boost when at flight levels, as the current seems to do. >> The hot/cold valve should be configured to as an either/or valve. Either you take air off the discharge of the turbos or after the third heat exchanger. Since you need the air for pressurization anyway, there is no performance penalty and very little weight penalty for this "Heater". Electric heaters are a bad idea. Two 600-watt heaters would draw about 100 amps requiring a second alternator plus posing a significant fire hazard. Heat muffs are also problematic, as they would need to be pressurized, virtually leakproof and require lots of pressurized plumbing and valving. There is also the matter of CO2 poisoning. The only other way I can think of would be to put a small engine oil cooler in the cabin with a fan to circulate air through it. A leak would put hot oil in the cabin. Oops. Stick with the standard setup. It works well, it is light and simple plus there is a certain Zen in getting something (heat) by not doing something (cooling). I have found that there is PLENTY of heat even at FL290 and rarely have the control more than 1/2 out. Compliments of the season. Brent