wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
The issue with shock cooling isn't the rate of cooling per se, but
rather stress induced by differential cooling.
Actually, I think it is the rate of cooling *and* the differential
cooling -- if it exists at all. Like you, I am skeptical -- but am I
willing to bet $25K on it? Nope.
How does the rate affect things? I have a masters in structural
engineering and work for a materials company so don't be afraid to get
technical. :-)
How 'bout this: It's the disparate rates of cooling in some parts of
the engine (versus others) that causes the differential cooling that
induces stress?
Yes, that is what I said originally. It is differential cooling that
causes the problem, not the rate of cooling itself. If you could cool
the entire engine uniformly, I don't think it would matter much how fast
you cooled it.
It isn't the rate itself that causes a problem, it is the difference in
rates from one location to another. However, I still think that the
greatest thermally induced stress occurs during the initial heat-up from
a cold start, but I don't have any data to confirm that and I don't have
an instrument airplane with which to collect the data.
Matt
I would think the greatest thermally induced stress occurs when you fly
into rain.


That may well be, but probably only for the front two cylinders. I
wonder if the front cylinders have a higher failure rate than the rest?

Matt

Hmmm, thinking about it a bit, any shock cooling should be worse on
the front two cylinders rain or shine.

An analyse of failure rate by cylinder position would be interesting.


Yes, my thought exactly. I wonder if anyone keeps such data? I know
when I owned my Skylane, we never had any unusual issues with the front
two cylinders. This data, if available, would certainly provide some
indication if shock cooling is real or imagined.

Matt