Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #9034
From: Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling oil
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:00:54 -0400
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: Al Gietzen
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 12:46 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling oil

 

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling oil

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Joseph Berki" <joseph.berki@grc.nasa.gov>

To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 12:39 PM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Cooling oil

 

 

> It would be interesting to measure flow in both engines.  I thought that

> both Lycoming and Mazda engines rejected 2/3 heat load through the

> oil  that is why I started going down this road.  If the engines generated

> the same Hp than the heat load should be similar.

>

> Joe Berki

 

Joe, both engines may generate the same heat load, but the proportion

rejected through the coolant in case of the Mazda is 2/3 of its waste heat

while the oil rejects another 1/3 of the waste heat.  Neither engine rejects

anywhere near 2/3 of its waste heat through the oil.

 

Most aircraft engines reject on the order of 300-600 BTU/Min through the

oil, the Mazda at 160HP rejects approx 2446 BTU/Min through the oil.

 

Ed Anderson

 

Ed;

 

That number looked a bit high to me, so I went in to my file to check.  My data shows 28% of the fuel burn energy in the rotary gets converted to HP, 18% goes to the coolant, and about 7% to the oil. Most of the rest goes out the exhaust pipe. For 160 HP output, I think that should be 1725 BTU/Min going to the oil cooler.  So about 3 times the comparable powered Lyc.

 

Double check me on this.

 

Al

 

Thanks Al,

 

    I did double check and here are my calcuations - in case I've missed an error in them somewhere and can't spot it.

 

    I use a conservative 25% for HP, 25% for Coolant and 50% for Exhaust.  So I am interested in where you got the 28% for HP.  That would mean less waste heat to the coolers.

 

Here are my calculations

 

1 Lb of gasoline containts approx 19,000 BTU of energy.  For 160HP I get 1.58 Lb/min of fuel flow.

 

which is approx 1.58*19,000 = 30020 BTU/min. Using  Hp = 25%, Waste = 25%, Exhaust = 50%

 

Waste = 0.25*30020 = 7505 BTU/Min.  The oil dumps approx 1/3 of the waste heat of a rotary,

 

so 0.3333*7505  = 2501 BTU/Min at 160HP.  So unless my fuel flow is off I think my initial

 

calculation is approximately correct.  I think I used 18,800 BTU in my orginal calculations which

 

would give a slightly lower value.    I have seen the BTU content of a lbm of gasoline vary between

 

about 18,800 to 20,000 BTU/Lbm.

 

Checking my fuel flow for a 160HP engine. 

 

 I have air flow = 80*6000/1728 = 277.77 CFM for a 2 rotor 13B

 

1 cubic foot of air mass at sea level = approx 0.076 lbm. So that gives .076*277.77 = 21.11 lbm/minute of air flow for the 2 rotor at 6000 rpm at sea level.

 

I used an air/fuel ration for best power of 13.3 (just the value I happen to have in my calculator).  So my fuel needed for that air flow (21.11 lbm/minute) is 21.11/13.3= 1.587 lb/min of fue.

 

So 1.587*19,000 = 30157.14 BTU/Min of which 0.25*0.333*30157 = 2510 BTU/Min for the cooler.

 

So unless I've screwed up somewhere in the calculations or unless the my allocations of the BTU for waste heat rejection are not valid, I think my calcuation is pretty close.

 

Ed

 

 

 

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