Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #37103
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Marginal Cooling contributes to Crash.
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:06:56 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
I think we all understand that being rather "smart" ,we all pride ourselves on our analytical and decision making ability (however occasionally  good/bad it may be).  So when we encounter a circumstance we consider options (pure water does indeed help the cooling - considerably) I've done it myself in early flights trying to get a temp decrease.
 
  But, like Dave said, there would have been no problem had he 1.  Not flown into the cold temps or 2.  Put adequate anti-freeze prior to doing so. So this does not sound like a marginal cooling system - to me, just one that was operated outside of the  environmental parameters the pilot expected.  I don't care how big the radiator would have been, the lack of sufficient anti-freeze would have likely had the same results.  So at least in this case, the "marginality" of the cooling system does not appear to be a factor.
 
 Now I have seen marginal cooling systems, one individual who is thankfully back to a Lycoming would come flying in and upon shut down would have smoke curling out of his intakes.  When this was pointed out to him, his response was "It always does that".  True this individual did cook at least 2 engines before he even got to a marginal system.  Since his radiator hose burst and resulted in a force landing - That also  might be another indication of a "marginal" system.
 
But, the  two instances that I am aware of that resulted in truly "cooked" engines had again had nothing to do with how "marginal" their cooling system was.  In one case, a loose radiator hose clamp led to loss of coolant and a cooked engine, in the second a freak incident in which both water pump belts popped off the pulley and resulted in no coolant flow.  Fortunately, the robust rotary got both aircraft back to a safe landing. 
 
This is not to make small of Al's points.  He is certainly correct that a cooling system that results in degraded operation or excessive temperature excursions is not desirable and can lead to serious problems.  On the other hand, accepting temporary limited excursions for limited periods have been done by just about everybody I know flying a rotary and I've yet to see any evidence that this detrimental. 
 
 Certainly as someone mentioned all WWII fighters had some regime of flight where cooling was less than adequate (generally on the ground or take off)  - on the other hand, the designers knew that if they gave them enough cooling capacity to handle a normally time -limited situation then the fighter would never have achieved satisfactory combat performance.   Not that we are in the same league {:>), but nice to pretend.
 
So the point I attempted to make and others seem to think the same, is that it would be difficult to pick and agree on the parameters and values that we could use as a criteria.   Al indicated that the "marginal" point was a spot on a curve - does any one know what this curve's parameters are?  I would at least like to be aware of them. 
 
Ed
 
 
 


Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster