Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.190; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au
Message-ID: <002501c8280f$1b6196a0$96a41dd3@george>
From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2490551@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] heat exchanger placement
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:11:11 +1000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> 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.

Andrew, 
The extra plumbing seems to be one problem.
George ( down under)