Return-Path: <dale.r@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5)
  with ESMTP id 595103 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 07 Jan 2005 17:22:00 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.31; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
Received: from smtp.west.cox.net ([172.18.180.57]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with SMTP
          id <20050107222132.JVOB27771.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:21:32 -0500
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528)
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: oil/water Exchanger  
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:21:32 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20050107222132.JVOB27771.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>



   Rusty wrote:
  
> Good points of course, but I still can't help but be drawn to the simplicity
> of having only one scoop, one duct, and one radiator.  

   Alas, things are rarely as simple as we think they are.
You still have two "radiators" (a radiator is just a water-
to-air heat exchanger); you still have the plumbing to 
get the oil to and from the exchanger; and you also have 
the weight of a heat exchange system (oil-water) that is 
less efficient than oil-to-air.  

   John Slade has one scoop, one duct - so the simplicity 
is achievable with separate exchangers.

Regards,
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #1254