[s-cars] Re: [S-Car]Ain't no small intercooler here

[mlp qwest]

Jimmy - You might want to see if you can beg, borrow, steal or, failing
that, actually buy a copy of Corky Bell's recently released book
"Supercharging"

He's redone & greatly expanded on the chapter on intercooling originally in
Maximum Boost.  BTW, on another food for thought matter, if you carefully
examine some of the B&P IC designs vs. say the extruded tube construction,
you may see that the B&P's have significantly more flat vertical faces.
It's been suggested, especially on the intake side, the addition of a rolled
face, or "teepee" might improve air flow, i.e.
the face would look like:

               OR      /
	]                ]
	 )                >
	]                ]      <- Charge Air flow direction
       )                >
	]                ]
                       \

This may be a reflection of Peter Berrovoet's suggestions, but I think the
place it makes most sense, at least from the IC cores I have looked at, is
internally at the charge air collection channels.  That would be inside the
end tanks.  No personal "BT" or "DT" experience with this however; and other
than seat of the pants opinions I would guess that it might be rather hard
to accurately document the advantages, if any to the thought.  If there is
one place the UrS4 IC's do look like they would constrict flow, its at the
internal collection points to each of the 30 individual tubes (15 rows x 2
tubes in each) that go into the make up of the cores.  A photo in this case
would be worth a lot of words.  Last, Antti Lehtonen posted on a related
list a new link to Eric Fahlgrens site & little java (?) applets ~ e.g.

>  http://not2fast.gotdns.com/turbo/velocity.html

I think I had an old link at the Univ of Michigan or something like that to
Eric's very (IMO) at least interesting, if not worth while "stuff"  You know
that 650 cfm being pumped through @ a 1.65" inside diameter tube, the
approximate size of a K24's cold side exit, requires the air at that point
to be moving at close to 729 ft/sec or almost 500 mph?

mlp


~
~FWIW, I think the air flow guys favor a
~               \   <-
~            |     <-
~       IC   |     <-
~            |     <-
~               /   <-
~
~Mikee,
~
~Re: your drawing above, here is what the MC guys think about that (or at
~least they used to):
~http://www.oochietoe.demon.nl/motor/pic/racer3.jpg
~
~Secondly, what is the current thinking on two intercoolers in series?  For
~the track car, I'm using the RS2 intercooler in the usual place under the
~bumper.  Then the air flows up and back across the front of the car before
~going into the intake.  Since I am using a stock CQ (non-piped)
~crossover, I
~am having to make a pipe that runs back across the front of the
~car, like in
~this photo:
~http://www.irry.com/mange/p1010147.jpg
~
~Hmmm, I thought.  I spy a potentially wasted opportunity.  So, we are
~planning on using a 5000t intercooler with custom end tanks to be
~used where
~that crossover pipe is.  Anybody see anything wrong with that idea?  Yeah,
~yeah, I know about the Scientific Method.  I'll build it, take
~measurements,
~and then we will know, but I was just wondering if I am
~overlooking anything
~fundamentally bad about the idea.
~
~BTW, I'm digging the recent rash of tech talk on the list.  Thanks,
~
~Jimmy P.
~_______________________________________________
~