X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.241.38] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.4) with ESMTP id 1740791 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:19:38 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.38; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070106171846.MGVP9173.fed1rmmtao01.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2007 12:18:46 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.132.90]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id 7tK11W0221xAn3c0000000; Sat, 06 Jan 2007 12:19:01 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ideal cooling Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:18:57 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c731b6$bfad4100$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C73173.B18A0100" 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 V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C73173.B18A0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable BTW; I thought I'd just point out that I am not in disagreement with = Monty's math at all; it is right on. I was simple taking issue with using the = term "optimum" in the way he did. Certainly calculating the mass flow rate required for heat rejection is step one. I guess aiming for the air exit temp equal to coolant exit gives you a 'minimum' point for air flow; but what is wanted as 'optimum' is minimum radiator size and weight, and = minimum aerodynamic drag. That's a whole nuther level and beyond the scope of = this discussion. =20 =20 Given the flow rate of the pump, the configuration of the airplane = (tractor - pusher) radiator placement, space requirement, etc.; there is an = 'optimum' coolant delta T, air delta T, radiator thickness, etc. from the = standpoint of weight and drag. =20 There are certainly some wrong ways to do it, but no one right way. =20 =20 I'd agree this is accurate. =20 Al G =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C73173.B18A0100 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

BTW; I thought I’d just = point out that I am not in disagreement with Monty’s math at all; it is = right on.  I was simple taking issue with using the term “optimum” in the = way he did.  Certainly calculating the mass flow rate required for heat = rejection is step one. I guess aiming for the air exit temp equal to coolant exit = gives you a ‘minimum’ point for air flow; but what is wanted as = ‘optimum’ is minimum radiator size and weight, and minimum aerodynamic drag. =  That’s a whole nuther level and beyond the scope of this discussion.  =

 

Given the flow rate of the pump, = the configuration of the airplane (tractor – pusher) radiator = placement, space requirement, etc.; there is an ‘optimum’ coolant delta = T, air delta T, radiator thickness, etc. from the standpoint of weight and = drag.

 

There are = certainly some wrong ways to do it, but no one right way.  

 

I’d agree this is = accurate.

 

Al G

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C73173.B18A0100--