Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 594967 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 15:00:43 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.32; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050107200012.XMOK21886.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 15:00:12 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] oil/water Exchanger Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:00:16 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c4f4f3$82313630$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4F4B0.740DF630" 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_01C4F4B0.740DF630 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] oi/water Exchanger [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil = cooler =20 The bottom line as we know is that ultimately the air flow has to carry = all the heat away from the installation. So oil to water heat exchangers = end up needing (as Ken points out) a larger radiator (possibly 1/3 larger) to handle the additional heat dumped into the coolant by the oil/water exchanger.. =20 Just an added comment, the amount of heat exchanger volume added to the coolant rad is more than would be needed for the direct to air oil = cooler for two reasons: the temp drop from oil to water, and the upper temp = limit on the coolant is generally lower than on the oil; both resulting in = lower temp for rejecting the heat - therefore bigger volume. If you have the room; the additional volume is less expensive, and may not weigh as = much, because of the lower pressure and viscosity. =20 I believe that oil/water heat exchangers might be justified in an = aircraft installation if for some reason the lay-out precluded getting air to an = oil cooler but did permit you to install a larger radiator capable of = handling the heat load for the coolant and oil. Otherwise, I don't believe they would work very well in most of our installations. There could be exceptions of course. =20 My $0.02 =20 Ed Anderson =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ken Welter=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 1:24 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil cooler =20 I tried a 85,000 btu fluidyne oil to water heat exchanger but it sent = my water temp through the roof so I abandoned it as I would have had to increase the radiator size. If anyone is interested I would sell it for $200 Ken =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Al, yes C&R makes their own oil-to-water coolers. I have never talked = to them to ask about pressure drop on the oil side. They sure build good looking stuff though (how's that for scientific!!!(grin)). Ken Powell Bryant, Arkansas ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4F4B0.740DF630 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil cooler

 


Subject: [FlyRotary] = oi/water Exchanger [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil cooler

 

The bottom line as we know = is that ultimately the air flow has to carry all the heat away from = the installation.  So oil to water heat exchangers end up needing (as = Ken points out) a larger radiator (possibly 1/3 larger) to handle the = additional heat dumped into the coolant by the oil/water exchanger..  =

Just an added comment, the amount = of heat exchanger volume added to the coolant rad is more than would be = needed for the direct to air oil cooler for two reasons: the temp drop from oil to = water, and the upper temp limit on the coolant is generally lower than on the = oil; both resulting in lower temp for rejecting the heat – therefore bigger volume.  If you have the room; the additional volume is less = expensive, and may not weigh as much, because of the lower pressure and = viscosity.

 

I believe that oil/water = heat exchangers might be justified in an aircraft installation if for some = reason the lay-out precluded getting air to an oil cooler but did permit you to install a larger radiator capable of handling the heat load for the = coolant and oil.  Otherwise, I don't believe they would work very well in most = of our installations.  There could be exceptions of = course.

 

My $0.02

 

Ed = Anderson

 

=

----- Original Message = -----

From: Ken Welter

Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 1:24 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fluidyne oil cooler

 

  I tried a 85,000 btu fluidyne oil to water heat exchanger but it sent my = water temp through the roof so I abandoned it as I would have had to increase = the radiator size.

 If anyone is interested I would sell it for $200

  Ken

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al, yes C&R makes their own oil-to-water coolers.  I have never talked to them to ask about pressure drop on = the oil side.  They sure build good looking stuff though (how's that = for scientific!!!(grin)).


Ken Powell

Bryant, Arkansas

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4F4B0.740DF630--