OK, all you aerodynamicists; here?s the scoop ? what I did and what I
measured;
1 ? sealed the strake/wing in front of exit fairing - - No effect
2 ? Installed Gurney flap at back edge of exit fairing (see photo 1) ? Very
little effect.
3 ? Set up manometer to get some pressures. (photo 2)
4 ? Dynamic pressure in front of scoop, ½? from surface (photo 3) -- 9.5? at
160 mph. Nothing wrong with that. Free stream away from surface would be a
bit over 12?.
5 ? Static pressure ½? from face of core ? 3 ¼? (end of tube was pointing
slightly away from direction of flow at about 60 degrees to the flow; flow
velocity is pretty low)
6 ? Static pressure just behind the core --- 0?
7 ? Static pressure at behind exit fairing, ¾? from surface (photo 4) ? ¾?
So .. . plenty of dynamic pressure in front of scoop and only 3 ¼? pressure
in front of the cooler core. This would suggest that the scoop/duct isn?t
working.
Photo 5 is a reasonably accurate x-section of the scoop and duct. Shaping
was limited because duct entrance is right behind the spar, and by the
limited thickness of the wing root. I'm just guessing that the somewhat
abrupt curvature of the upper wall at the entrance is causing flow
separation, turbulence; and whatever.
You'll also note in photo 4 that I had cut the center section of the exit
fairing to allow exit further forward - that didn't help. I also did soap
drops on the surface which way air was going both in front of; on top of;
and behind the fairing. In all places the flow was relatively straight
back. I'm also guessing that there isn't much chance of developing a
greater negative pressure at the exit; but, hey, whatever works
All I need to know is a simple fix:-)
Al
Well two things Al. You are measuring dynamic pressure with the front
hose. It is basically a pito tube but it says nothing about what
is going into the duct. The back hose is not exit pressure.
It is being affected by air currents passing over the open end
of the tube. If you want to measure static pressure you need
to hot glue porous foam on the end of the tubes. Ordinary kitchen
foam works fine. Also drip irrigation tubing is smaller than what
you have there and would cause less disturbance.
The front foam pressure tap needs to be inside the duct in contact with
the front face of the core. You should have four or five in there.
the rear foam pressure tap should also be in the exit duct in contact
with the aft face of the core. Again four or five.
IMHO your test set up is faulty.
I think your assessment of the duct shape is probably correct.
I can see no simple fix but good pressure data in four spots
on the front face of the core would help. You need more U tubes.
You could spend a lot of time getting the duct shape just right with
good data and still not get it to cool really well.
I know this is a challenge for you and you have some
creative individualism invested :)
If it were mine I would suck it up and take the core out of the
wing and place in in the cowl long ways and feed it with a Kays & London
wedge shaped diffuser connected to a P38 type ram air scoop.
Similar to what Perry Mick is doing. Last picture.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Oh; yeah. I also tried VGs about 2 1/2 ft in front of the exit fairing --
no noticeable effect. I had previously tried smaller VGs on top of the
exit
fairing for no joy.
Al
Hey Al,
I think there's likely separation as illustrated in the first picture.
I think Paul is right about the wedge diffuser, but I don't think you have
to move the cooler to the cowl. Maybe have a look at the 2nd pic...
What do you think?
Matt-
Brilliant Matt. I like it. Perhaps with some boundary layer energizers
ahead of it. Why did I not think of that :)
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
You need to read my book Ernest.
You can get it from Aircraft Spruce
http://www.rotaryeng.net/how-to-cool12.html
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/bvpages/coolYourWankel.php
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Yeah....
I'll probably skip that one.
Ernest
Here is a better way of dealing with the boundary layer Al.
This is from Hoerner Fluid Dynamic Drag.
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The thing is, Al's trying to improve cooling, not reduce drag. Your
proposal may be a good solution if he was working from a clean sheet,
but I know I wouldn't want to do the butcher job to a completed wing
that this retrofit would require. Even from a clean sheet, the
straight-line wedge duct as depicted would leave a lot of cooling on the
table. The back side of the core would get an overabundance of airflow,
while the front side gets little to none. The air that does flow will
meet the core fins at an acute angle that will cause flow separation on
the backside of the fins and block flow through the radiator. The goal
is to get the air to flow into the entire face of the core.
Ernest Christley.
"Even from a clean sheet, the straight-line wedge duct as depicted would
leave a lot of cooling on the table. The back side of the core would get
an overabundance of airflow, while the front side gets little to none.
The air that does flow will meet the core fins at an acute angle that will
cause flow separation on the backside of the fins and block flow through
the radiator."
You are totally and completely wrong about this.
If you don't want to read my book you could start reading this list of
references.
*Aerodynamics of Propulsion. D. Kuchemann & J. Weber McGraw-Hill Book Company
Inc. 1953 Lib. Of Congress. # 52-6541
*Compact Heat Exchangers. W.M. Kays and A. L. London Kreiger Publishing
Company. Malabar Florida. 1998 ISBN 1-57524-060-2
*Fluid Dynamic Drag by S.F. Hoerner 1964 Lib. Of Congress # 64-19666
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.