Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.65] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 593953 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 19:10:07 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.65; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050107000932.FJHP2402.imf17aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:09:32 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil cooler Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 18:09:46 -0600 Message-ID: <012d01c4f44d$32530fe0$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_012E_01C4F41A.E7B89FE0" 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_012E_01C4F41A.E7B89FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Depends on how much HP you make??? If you make the 180 - 195 that I = think you are making I don't think this cooler will work due to the added thickness you mentioned. =20 =20 I'll be really interested to hear Tracy's take on this. I think he's = going to be disappointed when he hears the actual dimensions, at least for his = 20B application. While I'm still sure it would be safe to fly, I'm not = quite sure it will be everything I want it to be. Kinda thinking about exchanging it for the next larger version. =20 =20 I did some estimation of the core size of the next larger version, the 30617. It's listed as 14.75 x 9.25 x 3, but I'm estimating the core to = be 11.625 x 9.25 x 2.25 based on the construction of the smaller cooler. = That gives a volume of 242 cu in (vs 165 for the smaller one), which seems = far more likely to succeed. Unfortunately, the larger size will mean that = it won't fit as well, and won't have nearly as nice of a ducting scheme. Fortunately, Summit has a very good return policy, so I just ordered the next size for comparison. I'll probably end up keeping the larger one, since I can't take the chance of ending up with oil temp problems again. I'm also not ruling out abnormal aspiration to get more power in the = future, so more cooling is better. =20 =20 If you choose to try it anyway because of the good installation = location (which seems like a pretty good tradeoff) you could use a C&R = oil-to-water cooler as a 'fall-back plan' to get the additional oil cooling you need since your water temps are good and you have excess water cooling. I = have a 84 mazda water-to-oil cooler I'll loan you want to try it but I'm not to hopeful for this cooler to help. =20 Thanks for the cooler offer, but I'll pass. I just finally looked = through enough parts manuals to figure out that the oil/water cooler wasn't used = on the 13B, so it was only (marginally) semi-capable of working with about = 105 HP. Doesn't sound promising, even for a single rotor. =20 =20 As for oil/water heat exchangers in general, I like the idea. I even briefly considered replacing my bad oil cooler with another evap core = being used for water, then try to find a place for an oil/water heat = exchanger. I'm afraid 4 cooling devices trips my limit though, so I think I'm stuck with a normal air/oil cooler for the RV-3. The RV-8 would definitely = get a single radiator, and an oil/water exchanger. =20 =20 For the single, I'm going to have to sump mount the engine, without much room for a pan. I'm considering making a dry sump system out of it, = with an oil/water heat exchanger doubling as an oil reservoir. No firm plans = yet, just random thoughts. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty =20 ------=_NextPart_000_012E_01C4F41A.E7B89FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Depends on how much HP you make???  If you make the 180 - 195 = that I=20 think you are making I don't think this cooler will work due to the = added=20 thickness you mentioned.   
 
I'll be=20 really interested to hear Tracy's take on this.  I think he's = going to=20 be disappointed when he hears the actual dimensions, at least for = his 20B=20 application.   While I'm still sure it would be safe to = fly, I'm=20 not quite sure it will be everything I want it to be.   Kinda = thinking=20 about exchanging it for the next larger=20 version.  
 
I did=20 some estimation of the core size of the next larger version, the = 30617. =20 It's listed as 14.75 x 9.25 x 3, but I'm estimating the core to be = 11.625 x 9.25=20 x 2.25 based on the construction of the smaller cooler.  That = gives a=20 volume of 242 cu in (vs 165 for the smaller one), which seems far more = likely to=20 succeed.  Unfortunately, the larger size will mean that it won't = fit as=20 well, and won't have nearly as nice of a ducting = scheme.  Fortunately,=20 Summit has a very good return policy, so I just ordered the next = size for=20 comparison.  I'll probably end up  keeping the larger one, = since I=20 can't take the chance of ending up with oil temp problems = again.  I'm=20 also not ruling out abnormal aspiration to get = more power in the=20 future, so more cooling is better.    
 
 If you choose to try = it anyway=20 because of the good installation location (which seems like a pretty = good=20 tradeoff) you could use a C&R oil-to-water cooler as a 'fall-back = plan' to=20 get the additional oil cooling you need since your water temps are good = and you=20 have excess water cooling.  I have a 84 mazda water-to-oil cooler = I'll loan=20 you want to try it but I'm not to hopeful for this cooler to help.
 
Thanks for=20 the cooler offer, but I'll pass.  I just finally looked through = enough=20 parts manuals to figure out that the oil/water cooler wasn't used on the = 13B, so=20 it was only (marginally) semi-capable of working with about 105=20 HP.   Doesn't sound promising, even for a single=20 rotor.  
 
As=20 for oil/water heat exchangers in general, I like the = idea.  I=20 even briefly considered replacing my bad oil cooler with another evap = core being=20 used for water, then try to find a place for an oil/water heat = exchanger. =20 I'm afraid 4 cooling devices trips my limit though, so I think I'm stuck = with a=20 normal air/oil cooler for the RV-3.  The RV-8 would definitely get = a single=20 radiator, and an oil/water exchanger. 
 
For the=20 single, I'm going to have to sump mount the engine, without much = room for a=20 pan.  I'm considering making a dry sump system out of it, with an = oil/water=20 heat exchanger doubling as an oil reservoir.  No firm = plans yet,=20 just random thoughts.  
 
Cheers,
Rusty  =20
------=_NextPart_000_012E_01C4F41A.E7B89FE0--