Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 801252 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:47:55 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.72; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050317234708.OMXQ5558.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:47:08 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric water pump Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 17:45:22 -0600 Message-ID: <001e01c52b4b$6292b310$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001F_01C52B19.17F84310" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C52B19.17F84310 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yeah, I thought Tracy and yourself were using the smaller hoses with = the pretty AN fittings,=20 =20 Hi Todd, If I'm not mistaken, Tracy is just using high quality = automotive hose. That's what I'll be using on the next project, because these dang = AN hoses are just too expensive, and seem pretty silly when you're running = 0 psi on the cooling system. I'm also convinced that AN fittings have = more evil leaks than I've ever seen on standard hose with clamps. Seems like = I'm always fiddling with some tiny little leak. =20 =20 and there is no doubt that Tracy at least has been successful (and I'm = sure you'll be right behind him :-),=20 =20 If I have to be right behind someone, at least Tracy is a good choice = :-) =20 but I still stand by my theory that if the automakers use no less than 1.25" hoses, then why would should we when we have a higher heat = rejection requirement.=20 =20 Certainly a good argument, but if it's clear that you don't need the = larger hoses, then I'm really confused why they do it. This is about the = point were Al will appear to do some math for us :-) =20 Cheers, Rusty (bring on the green beer) =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C52B19.17F84310 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
    Yeah, I thought Tracy and yourself were = using the=20 smaller hoses with the pretty AN fittings, 
 
Hi Todd,  If I'm not mistaken, Tracy is just using = high quality=20 automotive hose.  That's what I'll be using on the next project, = because=20 these dang AN hoses are just too expensive, and seem pretty silly when = you're=20 running 0 psi on the cooling system.  I'm also convinced that AN = fittings=20 have more evil leaks than I've ever seen on standard hose with = clamps. =20 Seems like I'm always fiddling with some tiny little leak. =20    
 
 and there is = no doubt=20 that Tracy at least has been successful (and I'm sure you'll be right = behind him=20 :-), 
 
If I have=20 to be right behind someone, at least Tracy is a good choice=20 :-)
   
 but I still = stand by my=20 theory that if the automakers use no less than 1.25" hoses, then why = would=20 should we when we have a higher heat rejection requirement. 
 
Certainly a=20 good argument, but if it's clear that you don't need the larger = hoses,=20 then I'm really confused why they do it.   This is about = the=20 point were Al will appear to do some math for us=20 :-)
 
Cheers,
Rusty (bring on the green=20 beer)
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_001F_01C52B19.17F84310--