A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Surface radiators for water cooled engines



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 3rd 03, 03:05 AM
RobertR237
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Wooduuuward
writes:


Thanks Boob,
nice of you to be so polite.
What I've spoken of is fact, if you would like to check it
out you will find the U.S. Military has the technology currently.
Fact: Henry "Smokey" Yunick was alive and kicking in the 1980's
and the three big auto makers offered him $200 g's for the rights
to it. Fact.
As for the backyard mechanic, that's exactly what Smokey was,
and well paid for it.



You mean the three big auto makers tried to SCREW him out of it for $200 g's
knowing full well that if it worked it would be worth ten thousand times that.



Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

Ads
  #22  
Old July 3rd 03, 02:38 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AND, patents are issued by the US Government AND they retain certain
rights in return for the protection they afford.

Just like trying to sue the Government, it's their party.



"Michael McNulty" wrote in message ...
"Russell Kent" wrote in message
...
Ernest Christley wrote:

The military is exempt from patent restrictions,


I doubt that statement is true, but I have no facts to either prove or
disprove the statement. In any case, the U.S. military does not (as a

rule)
manufacture much of its own equipment. That is done by subcontractors who
are very much bound by U.S. patent law.

Russell Kent

Actually, the normal U.S. military development contract has a clause called
"authorization and consent" that specifically authorizes the contractor to
infringe on any patents that it sees fit too, and whereby the U.S.
government consents to accept any liability associated with this
infringement (i.e. they agree to allow themselves to be sued by the patent
holder).

Believe it or not.

  #23  
Old July 3rd 03, 05:44 PM
Wooduuuward
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Did you have a look at Smokey's drawings and facts on his working
engine in a car, before you posted this?

Richard Isakson wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote ...
I believe that the thermodynamics involved don't fit the problem.
Evaproating the fuel as it goes into the engin won't provide sufficient
cooling to do the job.


Snicker. You got that right! Gasoline has a specifc heat of 0.50
BTU/lb/deg F and a vaporization point of about 350 deg F. Heating the gas
from 70 deg to 350 deg could absorb 140 BTU/lb from the exhaust out of a
total of 18,000 BTU/lb that will be burned.

Darn it, I missed another free lunch.

Rich

  #24  
Old July 5th 03, 09:37 AM
Paul Millner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gasoline has a specifc heat of 0.50
BTU/lb/deg F and a vaporization point of about 350 deg F

Gasoline's endpoint is 350 F... half of it is vaporized by about 180F... and
it starts vaporizing just under 100F... remember, it's a mixture of
hydrocarbons. Of course, you get more bang for the buck than just the
specific heat... you get the heat of vaporization as well, eh?

Paul


  #25  
Old July 6th 03, 05:50 PM
Jay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry it took so long to get back but I'm in Hawaii right now so
access to the internet is limited (laptop+digital cell phone).

The vast majority of GA engines don't use radiators so none of the
large manufacturers are interested in pursuing a project with only a
niche market (and budget concious one at that), so this may be another
reason.

And you bring up a good point, who can build one and the rest of an
entire airplane. Most people are so busy doing all the other things
the have to do (work) to be able to spend time/money doing experiments
but thats part of the reason for bring it up here- so we can get lots
of eyes and brains on the problem. Some people that have done work in
this area can bring up points, and maybe somebody will say "I work in
a brazing shop, we make something like that for XYZ application."
I've seen some stuff real close done by the guys that do forced air
cooled cabnets for avionics. No doubt, construction will have to be
done by a specialist or someone that will become a specialist. I'm
writing in this newgroup more for the expermintal part and less for
the home made part.

Mechanical stresses- I can definitly see this would be a problem if
the radiator is a structural element or ridgedly attached to one at
multiple points, but what I'd imagined was some part (or whole) of the
lower cowl. That cowl region being critical because it has access to
that nice cooling turbulent air right behind the propeller. 3 blades
might do better than 2 for this style cooling. The only weight it has
to support is itself. These things are often times fiberglass so they
aren't all that strong.

From what I've read of the radiator imperical studies from the "golden
age", producing a turbulent flow was key cooling efficiency per unit
area.

For a low speed aircraft (100MPH) an auto radiator makes more sense
than something custom like we're talking about here.


Regards
  #26  
Old July 7th 03, 02:40 PM
RobertR237
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(Jay) writes:


Mechanical stresses- I can definitly see this would be a problem if
the radiator is a structural element or ridgedly attached to one at
multiple points, but what I'd imagined was some part (or whole) of the
lower cowl. That cowl region being critical because it has access to
that nice cooling turbulent air right behind the propeller. 3 blades
might do better than 2 for this style cooling. The only weight it has
to support is itself. These things are often times fiberglass so they
aren't all that strong.


Surface Area? A standard auto styled radiator has a tremendous serface area
packed into a very small and light package. The air is forced through that
surface area with contact normally on two surfaces as it passes. To obtain the
same surface area on a single sided flat plain would take much more area than
is available on the underside of the cowling. You might be able to get enough
area by using the whole underside of the fuselage but you still don't have the
same type of contact.

From what I've read of the radiator imperical studies from the "golden
age", producing a turbulent flow was key cooling efficiency per unit
area.

For a low speed aircraft (100MPH) an auto radiator makes more sense
than something custom like we're talking about here.


Regards




Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

  #27  
Old July 7th 03, 07:32 PM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Surface Area? A standard auto styled radiator has a tremendous serface area
packed into a very small and light package. The air is forced through that
surface area with contact normally on two surfaces as it passes. To obtain the
same surface area on a single sided flat plain would take much more area than
is available on the underside of the cowling. You might be able to get enough
area by using the whole underside of the fuselage but you still don't have the
same type of contact.

Bob Reed

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bravo Bob, but no matter how you say it...
there are dreamers and wannabees that just can't let go
no matter what. Evidently, living without the Easter Bunny,
Santa Claus and the Surface Radiator Fairy is unthinkable.

Barnyard BOb -- stranger than fiction
  #28  
Old July 7th 03, 08:43 PM
Jay
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bob had mentioned the surface area thing as well, and this is a linear
relationship, but what I'm refering to is turbulence which has an
exponential relationship to the effective heat transfer capability of
that air mass. As you may know, in clean air, a film of heated air
clings to the interface between the metal surface and the air mass as
it passes by, this impedes heat transfer. A car radiator, while being
small and available, is also exceedingly draggy, which is why its not
an optimal choice choice for a fast airplane. The auto radiator is
designed for different conditions mainly:
1) High disipation at low air flow speeds
2) Clean air entering front surface (Reynolds number less than 10,000)
2) Drag not an issue

An aircraft/cowl-surface scenario doesn't have the condition of high
power output and low airflow and thustly should not besigned for this
condition. Even on the climb out, while the IAS may be low, the prop
wash is turbulent and higher in velocity than the speed of the vehicle
itself.

Regards
  #29  
Old July 7th 03, 09:05 PM
RobertR237
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Barnyard BOb --
writes:



Surface Area? A standard auto styled radiator has a tremendous serface area
packed into a very small and light package. The air is forced through that
surface area with contact normally on two surfaces as it passes. To obtain

the
same surface area on a single sided flat plain would take much more area

than
is available on the underside of the cowling. You might be able to get

enough
area by using the whole underside of the fuselage but you still don't have

the
same type of contact.

Bob Reed

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bravo Bob, but no matter how you say it...
there are dreamers and wannabees that just can't let go
no matter what. Evidently, living without the Easter Bunny,
Santa Claus and the Surface Radiator Fairy is unthinkable.

Barnyard BOb -- stranger than fiction


I understand the dreamers and wannabees but don't understand wanting to
reinvent the wheel. The idea of surface cooling is not a bad idea until you
get to looking at the details of what has already been tried and why is was not
a success. Many of the current advances in all areas is being achieved by
using old ideas with some of the modern materials and methods. If there was
some new materials available which could make this a plausable concept then
more power to them, it might work.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

  #30  
Old July 8th 03, 06:36 AM
Barnyard BOb --
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


The auto radiator is
designed for different conditions mainly:
1) High disipation at low air flow speeds
2) Clean air entering front surface (Reynolds number less than 10,000)
2) Drag not an issue

An aircraft/cowl-surface scenario doesn't have the condition of high
power output and low airflow and thustly should not besigned for this
condition. Even on the climb out, while the IAS may be low, the prop
wash is turbulent and higher in velocity than the speed of the vehicle
itself.

Regards



Well, since you already have it all figured out and know all the answers what
are you waiting for, do it. We are obviously unknowing of the solutions which
you have worked out and are waiting to be proved wrong.

Bob Reed

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This is the same class of dreamer and wannabee that
was discussed earlier. This ilk will not only reinvent the
wheel with Unobtainium, but is also famous for wasting
perfectly good restaurant paper napkins at lunch time.


Barnyard BOb -- Have sharp stick. Will travel.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.