I'm sure you have seen this before... water cooling... nothing new

GMAs · #1 10-01-02, 04:47 PM

I got another e mail asking about water cooling the 360... well here is a site you can go to and see all the pix on... http://www.liquidcooledairpower.com/about.shtml

cont engine had one that they were working on but, I don't know what happened to it... they went thru some reorg and that was the last I heard about it... maybe they quit ??/ anyway the pix that they had of the 337 with the water cooled in the back was real neat... no top scoop... less drag and better life... was the market cry... smile... G.M> GMAs

WebMaster · #2 10-01-02, 05:49 PM

I note that the 360 is the 4 cyl Lycoming 360. I also note that it is not for certified aircraft. I don't understand that part at all. Seems to me that a cylinder is a cylinder is a cylinder. That an STC, or 337 could be done to add a radiator, for certified aircraft. Would eliminate those pesky cowl flaps, probably reduce drag, no shock cooling for the turbo guys. I just don't understand why they stop short of certification.
Seems to me there would be a heck of a bigger audience, although the article on RAM using the LTIO550 continental indicated that the longevity wasn't there. Probably a function of the truly excellent quality control inherent in every Continental Engine

If they can do this for the kit market, it would be cool if they did it for the certified market. Kinda like the article on blowers in this months EAA mag. No special exhaust, etc, cooler temps, combine it with the liquid cooled cylinders, you'd have a winner.

GMAs · #3 10-03-02, 04:04 PM

Well... their are benifits to cooling by liquid.. notice I didn't say water... and they are a thighter more compact engine but, you stil need some air around it.. for the exhaust cooling and the crankcase... Oil and cyc and head temps could be controled by thermostats and the temp of the engine would be a lot lower than what it is now... so the variations in expansion of the metals would be more controlled.. and thus prone to less cracking... clearances would be tighter and engines should last a heck of a lot longer... and the heating of the interior would be simplified to the point of a controlled enviroment throughout the range of power. No baffels and sealing of the engine is required. And if the compression ratio was held to what it is now... a cleaner burning cheeper fuel could be used as preignition and detonation would be less likely to occur... also the engines could be shoved up in hp to take advantage of more even cooling and thus less cyc cracking and problems. More streamlined aircraft... and I am sure that getting rid of the top air intake would give us some speed increase....

Then their are the downsides....

Metal corrosion being exposed to liquids for cooling... leaking coolant... expansion of coolant and the additions of a water pump and plumbing. a engine that weights more...more expensive to convert and make changes in existing airframes.

Lets see did I leave anything out... G.M> GMAs

Bob Cook · #4 10-03-02, 04:26 PM

GMAS

you did leave something out.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

WebMaster · #5 10-03-02, 08:18 PM

Given that an airplane is a hole in the air where you throw money.

Water cooling that, combined with tighter tolerances, better production techniques, results in cars that go 200K miles routinely, vs what 40K in the 50's? Having an engine that would go 2000-2200 hours would have an impact on the $$$.

A cooler intput, Supercharging, vs Turbo charging, would result in better performance, and having conventional exhaust vs the complicate plumbers nightmare that you Turbo guys have would have an impact on $$.

There are many obstacles to taking normally aspirated to Turbo, and one of those is the exhaust.

There are many obstacles to improving airplanes, and most of them are spelled FAA.