Thanks for chiming in guys!
Paul, I went through the painstaking ordeal of designing my own 911 shroud. It was a pain in the arse but, oh well. I now have it on my 2110-cc Type I. To make it work, I had to add some internal vanage to direct the flow. My shroud shape is also somewhat different from those around in that I am not only trying to have the shroud act as a plenum to equalize the internal flow dynamics and pressures (which is rather difficult given the tight spatial constraints and flow impedances) but, I am also relying on the shroud's enveloping shape to induce flow to the #2 and #4 cylinders. I am somewhat satisfied with the results but, unfortunately, failed somewhat in the oil-cooling arena. What I attempted to do was allocate some air via a funnel within the shroud to direct air through a flex hose to a Type IV oil cooler enclosure similar to Jake's DTM oil-cooler housing. But due to the low pressures within the shroud and probably to the lack of adequate airflow velocities through the heads and cylinder cooling fins, there is some degree of heat transfer occurring. I can see this by merely feeling the temperature air coming out of the hose when I disconnect it.
Paul, to answer your question, the differences between the axial and radial fans are “actual” as well as “theoretical”. If one compares the output pressure and flow curves, it is readily apparent that the two different fan designs behave differently and respond in dissimilar manners to RPM changes. If one could have four equal conduit lengths and shapes to the intended four cooling targets, each being supplied by one quadrant of either fan, then we would not be having these axial vs. radial fan issues and debates. We would simply just have to either open or close off the exits to control the flows and pressures for either design and by adjusting the lengths of the conduits, we could normalize the airflows.
BTW, I am a mechanical engineer and I've used some of my past aerospace and building mechanical systems experience to arrive to my current design. The DTM radial fan based design is the simplest and most efficient method for our particular flat-four design. It is just that, given what the airflows have to encounter, it is much easier to harness the air expelled from the radial to direct to the individual cylinders. Due to the dynamic and directional fashion that the airflow is expelled from the axial fan, it is just too difficult within such a small envelope to direct it effectively. Also due to the lower pressures, we cannot influence the air to move like we want it. In the past, Jake and I discussed how easily minor changes within his Type I DTM design influenced pressure differentials within the shroud and how cooling changed from cylinder to cylinder unpredictably (one reason the Type I heads are just more flow restrictive, compared to the Type IV, due to their cooling fins). At the moment, it first appeared as a negative thing but once one understands what is happening, then we realize we can use this effect to rather effectively balance the design. I am sure that is what Joe and Jake have done with the Type IV DTM design.
As far as the 911 shroud is concerned, a functional design can be done but results heavily rely on much many other factors and variables. With all that Jake has experienced and encountered, I would not be surprised if he actually makes his 911 work actually well.
