> > Tracy Crook wrote:

 > >
 > > Here's some progress shots of Bernie Kerr's RV-9A project.  Amazing how
 that
 > > Griffin rad fits in the cowl .
 > >
 > > Tracy Crook
 > > tcrook@rotaryaviation.com
 >
 > Yes it fits but the back side is not unobstructed enough
 > and the exhaust will transfer a whole lot of heat to the
 > back side of the rad. Good luck Burnie :-)
 >
 > What does he have against putting it under the engine?
 >
 > Paul Lamar

 Since Bernie is building a metal RV, could be he doesn't want to mess with
 fiberglass mods to the cowling.  That was one of my reasons for using the
 standard openings (although I eventually gave in and did the fiberglass work
 necessary to put the oil cooler up front).  Always trade-offs to be made in
 building an aircraft {:>).

 I think that until there are a couple of flying examples of the
 under-the-engine radiator installation that clearly demonstrates its
 superiority to more ..uhm .. conventional placement of radiators... that
 those of a more conservative nature may feel more comfortable with
 installations that have shown they can adequately cool (however
 inefficiently).

Ed we have talked about this before. Dave Atkins has been flying for
years with his rad under the engine. He flies all over the country

>from Seattle. I have seen his airplane at sun & Fun, copper State and

OSH. Ask Kathy Atkins to tell you how well it works. Here too is a
picture of a King Air with two Orenda V8's. Rads under the engine.
There is also a Orenda Powered duster with the rads under the engine.
Also Mike Hershfeld flies a Ford V6 with a horizontal rad under the engine
with louver flaps air exit.

   Regardless of how much better the under-the-engine may truly be, I am
 unaware of anyone that has provided data from a flying rotary installation
 other than Chuck Dunlap who I believe is still working out some airflow
 challenges and perhaps a somewhat undersized radiator.   Tracy's and others
 use of evaporator cores and conventional openings clearly has provided close
 to 2000 or more hours of rotary powered cooling.  So I believe until their
 is sufficient data from flying installations on the under-the-engine system
 that this is one  reason some folks will hesitate to adopted it.

 So lets seem some data from you guys sticking the radiator under the
 engine - get those birds flying and collecting data. Paul's about to have a
 temperature data collection system that should work for just about any
 tractor aircraft and then we can compare apples and oranges.

 Ed Anderson

Good idea. Ask Kathy Atkins.

Paul Lamar

On  the other hand there are a number of  cheek rad installations
flying  and I believe that no one is claiming they can do a full
power climb out on a hot day  which is anything over 90 degrees.
Where I live, nearly every day in the summer is 100 degrees.  If I
installed cheeks, I'd have to wait to winter to fly. There is no
point pursuing a path that repeatedly has failed.  The logic  of the
belly rad is appealing just looking at it.  Paul's data is very
persuasive, too.    Just an opinion.  Soon  I will be fighting the
cooling war in reality .    Jerry

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.