X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 1235250 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:19:26 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jul 2006 10:18:29 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,238,1149480000"; d="scan'208"; a="92648551:sNHT34221106" Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6DEITfq018420 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:18:29 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k6DEIPdc012905 for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:18:29 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:18:27 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.136] ([64.102.38.136]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:18:27 -0400 Message-ID: <44B65632.5010205@nc.rr.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:18:26 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: heater References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jul 2006 14:18:27.0197 (UTC) FILETIME=[35518AD0:01C6A687] Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral James Maher wrote: > Ernest. > My oil temp generally runs 10C degrees cooler than the coolant > temperature. > This is actually very desirable as the oil red line is 210F while the > coolant can go much higher. > Also it will take longer for the oil to heat up than the coolant as > it's thermostat is activated at 140F degrees allowing flow through the > cooler, while the coolant thermostat is usually at 180F, if you have > one installed. > Having said all that, I am currently using my oil cooler exhaust air > for cabin heat just because it was easier to do, since the oil cooler > is mounted to the firewall and has its own fresh air inlet and outlets. > Jim Now I'm torn, Jim. I'm arranging one of the water coolers on one side of the cockpit, and the oil cooler on the other. At this point, it doesn't matter if I pull the hot air off of one or the other. I could pull it off of both, but I only want want to do one side right now for simplicity sake. I'm going to take fresh air off the front side of the heat exhanger, heat off the back side and run it through a mixer, so I expect to spend some hours putting all that together. I believe your numbers are atypical. Most guys are seeing higher oil than water temps. But I believe that will be an installation specific condition. I'll be running without a thermostat. The water has a lot more thermal mass than the oil, so I expect the oil to come up to temp much faster. I'm planning a sliding door to cut the airflow through the strake mounted ducts, so it probably won't matter. I can get the temps up quickly on either one. But I still think the oil will get hotter faster than the water. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |