Return-Path: Received: from SMTP02.INFOAVE.NET ([165.166.0.27] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 568061 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Dec 2004 01:45:14 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=165.166.0.27; envelope-from=jewen@comporium.net Received: from home1 ([165.166.183.54]) by SMTP00.InfoAve.Net (PMDF V6.2-X31 #30772) with SMTP id <01LIENDLW75M99DSZG@SMTP00.InfoAve.Net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:32:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 23:30:59 -0500 From: Joe Subject: Oil Cooling/Pumping To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-id: <004901c4e25e$e0d3da00$2632a8c0@home1> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: With all the problems encountered with leaking oil coolers, I was wondering if the following has any merit. Instead of using the engine driven oil pump to circulate oil through the cooler, why not install a secondary cooling loop. A seconary oil pick up would be connected to an auxilary oil pump which would circulate the oil through the cooler and return to the sump. The secondary loop could be run with a lower pressure and larger hoses to maintain an adequate flow rate, putting less internal force on the oil cooler. The normal engine connections for the oil cooler would be directly connected to each other to maintain oil flow in the engine. One downside might be the couple of extra pounds for the aux oil pump, but that sounds like a small price to pay. I appreciate anyone thoughts or comments. Joe (Still waiting for an engine mount.)