Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.3) with ESMTP id 432512 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:22:31 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.31; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20040926012158.BVAF14560.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:21:58 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: Oil viscosity Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:22:09 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c4a367$3eaadac0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4A32C.924C02C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4A32C.924C02C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable , but the real good news is the length of time it took to heat up the = oil. The only diff between today, and yesterday is the oil weight. Today, it took more than twice as long to get the oil up to 140. I was even = running higher rpms to get it there. Even after some full throttle running, I = still never saw 200 degrees. This may be the key to my oil temp issues. =20 =20 Ah-h-h; something doesn't compute here, at least not for me. Did you = start from the same temp? Was the air a lot cooler? More air blowing through = the cooler? More oil in the pan? A slight reduction in viscosity can't = account for the difference. The flow rate will be essentially the same, as I = think your pressure drops confirm; so-o-o-o what makes the heat rejection rate double? =20 But it does bring up the question, what is the recommended oil = viscosity? 5W30 seems a bit low. =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4A32C.924C02C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

<snip>

, but the real good news is the length of = time it took to heat up the oil.  The only diff between today, and = yesterday is the oil weight.  Today, it took more than twice as long to get the = oil up to 140.  I was even running higher rpms to get it there.  Even = after some full throttle running, I still never saw 200 degrees.  This = may be the key to my oil temp issues.  

 

Ah-h-h; something doesn’t = compute here, at least not for me.  Did you start from the same temp?  = Was the air a lot cooler?  More air blowing through the cooler? More = oil in the pan?  A slight reduction in viscosity can’t account for = the difference.  The flow rate will be essentially the same, as I think = your pressure drops confirm; so-o-o-o what makes the heat rejection rate = double?

 

But it does bring up the = question, what is the recommended oil viscosity?  5W30 seems a bit = low.

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4A32C.924C02C0--