Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=210.50.30.196; envelope-from=daval@iprimus.com.au
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622)
In-Reply-To: <list-980113@logan.com>
References: <list-980113@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <908f44e1dc4d14747caf90d5f83c51d4@iprimus.com.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: david mccandless <daval@iprimus.com.au>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Renesis oil pan
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 15:45:47 +0800
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

**** George, you have missed the point; I am not suggesting the use of 
2 oil coolers. We were referring to the different capacities in car 
servicing. The reason that the 6 port takes an extra quart in the dry 
engine, is that there are two coolers to fill instead of just one. The 
oil pan has the same capacity in both 4 and 6 port engines. FWIW, Dave 
McC
On 01/06/2005, at 12:46 PM, George Lendich wrote:

> David,
> Ken Waller has tried two coolers and the engine over cools with the two
> working. Perhaps you could use one and bring the second on line - but
> expensive and heavy for our applications.
>
> Better to have just the extra oil capacity.
>
> George ( down under)
>
>> **** Bobby, as I recall, the 6 port engine has 2 engine oil coolers as
>> against one engine oil cooler fitted to the 4 port autol this would
>> account for the  difference in oil capacity. FWIW, Dave McC
>>>>
>>>> I would feel better with the 6 port oil volume.
>>>>
>>>> Bobby
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>
>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>