|
|
Mike,
Not a dumb question - but, part of the answer may be as you suggested.
There is a lot of work to installing a rotary power plant and cowl work is
one more thing. Plus, the GM cores used behind the standard duct openings
have proven inexpensive and that they work just fine. Also, I suspect some
folks just want to retain the original cowl profile.
Powersport had an arrangement similar to what you suggest - took them a long
while to overcome cooling problems with it. Don't know what the problem was
(Powersport has never been very forthcoming about any problems), but I think
it was placing their rad too close to the firewall. Also there is a
person who sells such a cowl for the RV ( I think he originally made them
for PowerSport).
There is no reason such an arrangement could not be made to work, one
individual in Arizona also uses a similar arrangement (rad below the engine)
and had cooling problems (he may have them sorted out by now) - but, then
he is in Arizona which would stress the capability of any cooling system
{:>). I do not know of anyone's example to follow, so perhaps you will be
the first.
Ed
Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
----- Original Message ----- From: "Wynn, Mike" <mike.wynn@spectra-physics.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:43 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Cooling airflow
Dear All,
I have been reading with interest for a long time and wanted to ask what
maybe a dumb question...
Everywhere I have looked people use the standard `Lyc.' type cowls with
cheek openings and place the A/C `radiators' either side of the PSRU
behind
suitable ducts. I assume this is because it is easier to adapt the
existing
rather than to build a new cowl. However, would it not allow a straighter
and less draggy cooling setup if one were to design a cowl with a single
opening under the prop (a bit like, but much smaller than, a P40) and then
use a single duct to expand the area into the rads (placed under the
engine), and then continue straight out under the cockpit - perhaps with
some augmented airflow from the exhaust??? Surely this would allow a more
efficient airflow and enable smaller intake area and avoid the air having
to
fight its way round the engine bay to get out?
Is it just the fiberglass work people are avoiding, is it the avoidance of
the unknown (surely Rusty will have a go here???)
What am I missing?
Thanks
Mike
>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|