Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #4402
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Core vs Radistor was Re: [FlyRotary] radiator
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:33:13 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Paul,
 
    The two cores I use each have a fin volume area of 9*10.5*3.6 = 340 in^3 (does not include side tanks).  So two give a core volume of 2*340= 680 in^3.
 
Your radiator would give approx (discounting 2" total for  tanks) 15*7.25*3 = 337 in^3  even with 8" and disregarding the side tanks would only give 17*8*3 = 408 in^3. 
 
So if we assume that the two cores represented a minimum adequate fin core are then your  radiator would have to be 60% more efficient (408*1.6 = 652 in^3) to come close to the two cores.
 
My primitive cooling model indicates that with only 337 in^3, you would probably need airflow near 223 mph to provide adequate cooling at  power = 160HP.  Now at a more nominal cruise say 75% = .75*160 = 120Hp, you could probably get by with airflow at 170 MPH.  
 
What this could mean is similar to folks using the two cores - in that low airspeeds and high power settings exceed their cooling capacity - however, we are generally able to get up to adequate speeds and/or pull back the power sufficiently to come back within our cooling capacity before overtemps get serious.  So while we may overheat during take off and initial climb, once we get up airspeed cooling appears to be adequate with the two cores.  
 
So assuming you could get to around 170 mph before the overcoming the cooling inertia of your coolant mass, then by throttling back to 120HP you might be achieve adequate cooling.  However, if it took too long to reach 170MPH then I would expect to see over heating.
 
 Now I admit this is little better than back of the envelope cooling model, but two cores should keep 160Hp cool at around 115 - 120MPH and that is about what people seem to be experiencing with two cores.
 
So, Paul, my best opinion is that you will likely find the 17*8*3 inch radiator inadequate for aircraft use at the power settings we see.  It might be even worst for a canard installation.
 
However, if anyone on the list has experience to the contrary regarding equivalent radiator size, please jump in. 
 
 Rusty, what was the size of your radiator and the final determination about its adequacy?
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2003 11:55 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] radiator

Hi, fellow rotary enthusiasts.....I'm getting ready to order a radiator for my 13b powered SQ2000 canard pusher.  I talked to Al Wick, and he has a 160 hp Subaru powered Cozy and is cooling it very well with a radiator that is 17" x 7.25" x 3" deep.  Any idea if that size might also cool a rotary?  How does that seem to compare with two GM evaporator cores?  I was told that if I can increase the height to 8 inches instead of 7.25, they can put two fans on it, as well as the built-in Meziere EWP. I can work with the additional height of 8 inches.  Just don't want to spend $1100.00 for too small a radiator. If 17x8x3 equates to approximately the same size as two evaporator cores like Ed Anderson is using, I should be OK. If anyone can compare the square inches of the two, I would sure appreciate it.  Thanks in advance for any and all efforts and recommendations.  Paul Conner
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster