<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Crankshaft Oiling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/</link>
	<description>Specific mission-critical info for professionals</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 22:55:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Terry</title>
		<link>http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/comment-page-1/#comment-6151</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Jan 2011 06:06:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/#comment-6151</guid>
		<description>The oil flow in a nose fed crank is still subject to opposing CF, since the flow must travel radially inward after each crank pin.  The primary drawback with conventional main bearing feeds is the need for grooved bearings.  Without grooves, the flow area into the main journal gallery hole becomes very limited.

Having a consistent oil flow at each point in the circuit is the most important thing, due to bearing cooling requirements.  In that regard, feeding the crank at each main journal should give as good a pressure distribution as an end feed with its long, convoluted passages and inherent flow losses.

The only benefit to reducing oil system pressure is a small reduction in the oil pressure pump drive losses.  These losses can be of concern with low power production engines that tend to mostly operate at very limited power outputs, but are not an issue with high power race engines that operate mostly at WOT.  The additional fraction of a horsepower that might be gained is relatively insignificant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The oil flow in a nose fed crank is still subject to opposing CF, since the flow must travel radially inward after each crank pin.  The primary drawback with conventional main bearing feeds is the need for grooved bearings.  Without grooves, the flow area into the main journal gallery hole becomes very limited.</p>
<p>Having a consistent oil flow at each point in the circuit is the most important thing, due to bearing cooling requirements.  In that regard, feeding the crank at each main journal should give as good a pressure distribution as an end feed with its long, convoluted passages and inherent flow losses.</p>
<p>The only benefit to reducing oil system pressure is a small reduction in the oil pressure pump drive losses.  These losses can be of concern with low power production engines that tend to mostly operate at very limited power outputs, but are not an issue with high power race engines that operate mostly at WOT.  The additional fraction of a horsepower that might be gained is relatively insignificant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Schulz</title>
		<link>http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/comment-page-1/#comment-3199</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Schulz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 09:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/#comment-3199</guid>
		<description>We use this on our ADEPT aircraft engines.  These are liquid cooled, but in the event of coolant loss we can still fly at reduced power using oil cooling only</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We use this on our ADEPT aircraft engines.  These are liquid cooled, but in the event of coolant loss we can still fly at reduced power using oil cooling only</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Eden</title>
		<link>http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/comment-page-1/#comment-3131</link>
		<dc:creator>David Eden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/#comment-3131</guid>
		<description>Unless you have an F-1 budget, I don't believe the extra expense &amp; complexity of that oiling system is worth it. (from a manufacturing stand point)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unless you have an F-1 budget, I don&#8217;t believe the extra expense &amp; complexity of that oiling system is worth it. (from a manufacturing stand point)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: frank</title>
		<link>http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/comment-page-1/#comment-3129</link>
		<dc:creator>frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ret-monitor.com/articles/913/crankshaft-oiling/#comment-3129</guid>
		<description>One of the advantages of nose feed is lower oil pressure which requires less energy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the advantages of nose feed is lower oil pressure which requires less energy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

