Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=202.5.168.210; envelope-from=andrew@martinag.com.au
Reply-To: <andrew@martinag.com.au>
From: "Andrew Martin" <andrew@martinag.com.au>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: heat exchanger placement
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:55:01 +0900
Organization: Martin Ag
Message-ID: <002201c827eb$533ec6c0$0500a8c0@targa>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-2490515@logan.com>
Importance: Normal

Hi 
Following on from this thin vs thick radiator discussion. What's the
general consensus on placement of the heat exchanger/s? Seems to me the
most efficient WW11 planes had the exchangers mounted under the wing or
fuselage but nearly everyone here is placing them under the cowl, is the
reason for this just because its an easier installation to make, or is
it no less efficient at our power/speed.
My aim is to minimize total drag even if it means a longer build time to
get the installation correct, current thoughts are to place a short
thick coolant exchanger under the fuselage and have a clean tight
fitting cowl with only inlets for induction and oil heat exchanger,
hopefully there will be enough air going through the oil exchanger to
keep under cowl temps reasonable. 
Am I just plane crazy?
Regards Andrew Martin.