X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from eastrmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.240.59] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.16) with ESMTP id 3819445 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:28:28 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.240.59; envelope-from=tmann@n200lz.com Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20090820162752.IYJM19505.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:27:52 -0400 Received: from testPC ([70.184.217.221]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id WgTq1c0064nBe7202gTq0z; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:27:51 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=ao-1cRMcAogA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=ayC55rCoAAAA:8 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=QdXCYpuVAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=ekHE3smAAAAA:20 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=lIPtdIOrUdC3oKEEaLoA:9 a=OTteWOFzssyp26nCCSsA:7 a=8l_VOdhuHai2z81VDrqZeiZJlD0A:4 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=siAgtkydhMg941sx:21 a=RZccFth8StzHCMXf:21 a=yMhMjlubAAAA:8 a=SSmOFEACAAAA:8 a=lr0CWrycAAAA:8 a=JCOZqqoOAPfCQbx0ankA:9 a=D3hnc2w2y9NtKL5-IbAA:7 a=5grMS5VxKPUNBXE4SP0ol2ICyMsA:4 a=IqV2JC5IXLEQw02m:21 a=GMaVty3bnAhca1HD:21 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Thomas Mann" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:27:48 -0500 Message-ID: <036401ca21b3$28b19630$7a14c290$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0365_01CA2189.3FDB8E30" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcohrMXL+1usb+J0SFKuc8MbYR6nBAABgxcw Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0365_01CA2189.3FDB8E30 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry .. That looks a bit cryptic. I mean what radiator core volume & thickness? What is the consensus as far as the radiators that combine an oil cooler (such as the transmission cooler types)? From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Mann Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:41 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air Tracy, What are you going with on your 20B? I'm not to this point yet but the question has been rattling around in my head. T Mann From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:43 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air That's a more complicated question than a ROT can resolve. The simplest we have been able to reduce it to is a core VOLUME requirement. A volume between 2 and 3 CUBIC inches per HP seems to work OK. The thinner the rad (and larger the core frontal area), the lower core volume you might get away with (at a cost of more drag!) The thicker the rad, the higher Ci/HP value you should aim for. Lots of other factors involved as well. Location, room available, duct size & quality, cruise speed of aircraft, etc, etc. Note that we haven't included oil cooling cores in the discussion at this point. Oil is about 1/3 of total cooling in the rotary. Tracy On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Bryan Winberry wrote: With this ROT in mind, would a cowl that has an inlet area of say 50 sq.in, be overkill? This would support about 150 sq.in. of core area. IOW, what's a good core area for the rotary? Bryan _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:14 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air Count on Ed to supply the technical background :-) That's another good rule of thumb on the maximum inlet area too (.3 * core area). More doesn't do you any good. Main point is, You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make this stuff work if you follow a few basic rules of thumb. (The right ones that is, there are a lot of bogus ones floating around as well :>) Tracy On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: Past a specific inlet area to core frontal area (this ratio in the vicinity of 0.30, no additional flow is achieved by further opening of inlets - the exit area becomes the controlling factor. As Tracy stated, probably better to look to a cowl flap than mess with your inlets if you are getting good cooling with your present inlets. Here is an extract out of a study of cooling of small aircraft engines that points out the two functions of your exit area. Exits The exit has two basic functions: to regulate the cooling air flow and to exhaust the cooling flow into the external flow so as to result in minimal drag penalty. To adequately perform the regulation, the exit must act as both a throttle and a pump. Throttling is necessary in cruising flight to minimize the cooling drag by reducing the cooling flow to that sufficient to meet cooling requirements. In ground operation and in climbing flight, the exit must act as a pump to induce sufficient cooling flow through the system. Both of these functions can be performed by a hinged flap. The fundamental principle here is that for any subsonic flow system, the flow rate through the system will always adjust itself so that the static pressure at the exit will match the local external flow static pressure surrounding the exit. The static pressure at the exit is controlled by the exit area. Thus, regulation is obtained by varying this area. Opening the flap beyond the contour of the airframe creates a low-pressure region that induces additional flow through the system. It became common design practice during World War II to serve the exit flap to a coolant temperature sensor to optimize the system operation. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:49 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air "So far its looking like I could stand to shrink both inlets a little - maybe a lot. " Mike, Glad your EC2 & cooling issues are under control. I'd go with a cowl flap to restrict air flow (and increase exit velocity) rather than reduce inlet size. Probably less fiberglass work for the cowl flap as well. Won't go into the mind numbing formulas and laws that govern the principal but here is what I have boiled them down to: It is not the absolute SIZE of the cooling inlet that determines drag but the amount of air that goes through it. Main thing is to make sure the air that is diverted around the inlet has a clean path. (you've done a good job there). Restricting the inlet will also restrict the flow but why reduce your options for other conditions (hot weather, max climb, etc). Tracy On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Mike Wills wrote: I seriously considered a water oil exchanger. Fluidyne also made some of those that looked really good. Dont know if they still do. Ultimately decided not to go that route. So many people were having cooling issues when I was designing my system and it seemed that using seperate air oil exchangers would ease potential debug hassles. I'm mostly happy with my choice. Its working well so far. And using a $25 wrecking yard RX-7 oil cooler was about as cheap as it gets. My only complaints so far are that I am not real happy with the looks of the extra scoop I added for the oil cooler, and my braided stainless oil cooler lines are fairly long and heavy. I probably will redo the cowl somewhere down the road after I get a good handle on just how well the cooling is on hot days. So far its looking like I could stand to shrink both inlets a little - maybe a lot. On my flight the other day coolant temp never went over 180. And that included taxi from the extreme west end of the airport to the other end of an 8000' runway. Mike Wills RV-4 N144MW ------=_NextPart_000_0365_01CA2189.3FDB8E30 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry …. That looks a bit cryptic. I mean what = radiator core volume & thickness?

What is the consensus as far as the radiators that = combine an oil cooler (such as the transmission cooler = types)?

 

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Thomas = Mann
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:41 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back = in the air

 

Tracy,

What are you going with on your = 20B?

I’m not to this point yet but the question has been = rattling around in my head.

 

T Mann

 

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy = Crook
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 9:43 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back = in the air

That's a more complicated = question than a ROT can resolve.

The simplest we have been able to reduce it to is a core VOLUME requirement.   A volume between 2 and 3 CUBIC inches per HP = seems to work OK.  The thinner the rad (and larger the core frontal = area), the lower core volume you might get away with (at a cost of more = drag!)  The thicker the rad, the higher Ci/HP  value you should aim for.   Lots of other factors involved as well.  Location, = room available, duct size & quality, cruise speed of aircraft, etc, = etc.

Note that we haven't included oil cooling cores in the discussion at = this point.  Oil is about 1/3 of total cooling in the rotary. =

Tracy

 

 




On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Bryan Winberry = <bryanwinberry@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Wi= th this ROT in mind, would a cowl that has an inlet area of say 50 sq.in, be overkill? =  This would support about 150 sq.in. = of core area.

IO= W, what’s a good core area for the rotary?

Br= yan

&n= bsp;

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 10:14 AM


To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: Cowl Flap/Exit was [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air

 

Count on Ed to supply the technical = background :-)  That's another good rule of thumb on the maximum inlet area = too  (.3 *  core area).   More doesn't do you any good.

Main point is, You don't have to be a rocket scientist to make this = stuff work if you follow a few basic rules of thumb.  (The right ones that is, = there are a lot of bogus ones floating around as well :>)  

Tracy

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

Pa= st a specific inlet area to core frontal area (this ratio in the vicinity = of 0.30, no additional flow is achieved by further opening of inlets – the = exit area becomes the controlling factor. As Tracy stated, probably better to look = to a cowl flap than mess with your inlets if you are getting good cooling = with your present inlets.

&n= bsp;

He= re is an extract out of a study of cooling of small aircraft engines that = points out the two functions of your exit area. 

&n= bsp;

Exits

 

The exit has two basic functions: to = regulate the cooling air

flow and to exhaust the cooling flow = into the external flow so

as to result in minimal drag = penalty. To adequately perform

the regulation, the exit must act as = both a throttle and a pump.

Throttling is necessary in cruising = flight to minimize the cooling

drag by reducing the cooling flow to = that sufficient to meet

cooling = requirements.

 

 In ground operation and in = climbing

flight, the exit must act as a pump = to induce sufficient cooling

flow through the system. Both of = these functions can be performed

by a hinged flap. The fundamental = principle here is

that for any subsonic flow system, = the flow rate through the

system will always adjust itself so = that the static pressure at the

exit will match the local external = flow static pressure surrounding

the exit. The static pressure at the = exit is controlled by the

exit area.

 

 Thus, regulation is obtained = by varying this area.

Opening the flap beyond the contour = of the airframe creates a

low-pressure region that induces = additional flow through the

system. It became common design = practice during World War

II to serve the exit flap to a = coolant temperature sensor to optimize

the system operation.

 

 

Ed Anderson

Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews, NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm=

From:= Rotary = motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Tracy Crook
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:49 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: back in the air

 

"So far its looking like I could stand to shrink = both inlets a little - maybe a lot. "

Mike,
Glad your EC2 & cooling issues are under control.  I'd go with = a cowl flap to restrict air flow (and increase exit velocity) rather than = reduce inlet size.   Probably less fiberglass work for the cowl flap as = well.

Won't go into the mind numbing formulas and laws that govern the = principal but here is what I have boiled them down to:

It is not the absolute SIZE of the cooling inlet that determines drag = but the amount of air that goes through it.

  Main thing is to make sure the air that is diverted around the = inlet has a clean path.  (you've done a good job there).  Restricting = the inlet will also restrict the flow but why reduce your options for other = conditions (hot weather, max climb, etc).

Tracy

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net> wrote:

I = seriously considered a water oil exchanger. Fluidyne also made some of those that = looked really good. Dont know if they still do.

 

Ultimately decided not to go that route. So many people were having cooling issues = when I was designing my system and it seemed that using seperate air oil = exchangers would ease potential debug hassles.

 

I'm = mostly happy with my choice. Its working well so far. And using a $25 wrecking = yard RX-7 oil cooler was about as cheap as it gets. My only complaints so far = are that I am not real happy with the looks of the extra scoop I added for = the oil cooler, and my braided stainless oil cooler lines are fairly long and = heavy.

 

I = probably will redo the cowl somewhere down the road after I get a good handle on = just how well the cooling is on hot days. So far its looking like I could = stand to shrink both inlets a little - maybe a lot. On my flight the other day = coolant temp never went over 180. And that included taxi from the extreme west = end of the airport to the other end of an 8000' runway.

 

Mike = Wills

RV-4 = N144MW

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_0365_01CA2189.3FDB8E30--