Ken Powell wrote:

Paul,
Mike Wills suggested that I consider side exits for the cooling
air because it will allow me to fit a much larger radiator under
the engine.  I had earlier discarded this idea because I thought
that drag would be increased pretty significantly, but
pragmatically it seems to be working well on several aircraft.
Frankly, this is the only way that I will be able to fit a
radiator large enough for 200 to 240 HP.  What do you think of
exhausting the cooling air thru the sides of the cowl?  Note
that a side exit for the engine exhaust also seems mandatory for
a RV-4 (and all other narrow aircraft), so much of this
ralatively cool radiator exit air could be passed over the
exhaust system to keep the temps of the componets located near
the exhaust cool.

Ken Powell

I am all for it. Really solves a lot of problems with
the rotary installation. It is horz. opposed piston engine tradition 
only that dictates a bottom exhaust.

BTW Bill Schertz brought up the subject of CO leaking into the 
cockpit at OSH with side exhaust. I notice certain WW II aircraft with
side exhaust use small air deflectors where CO in the 
boundary layer might enter leaks in the canopy seals.
Some of those stick on CO monitors mounted inside the
cock pit near the canopy seals might be in order.

P.S. How did you send those rotor housings? I did not get them yet.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org