Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.53] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 801384 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:07:26 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.54.169.53; envelope-from=lors01@msn.com Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 17 Mar 2005 18:06:41 -0800 Message-ID: Received: from 4.174.4.82 by BAY3-DAV23.phx.gbl with DAV; Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:06:41 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [4.174.4.82] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric water pump Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:06:39 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C52B35.363C7500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:06:39 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0011.1703 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Mar 2005 02:06:41.0448 (UTC) FILETIME=[20586A80:01C52B5F] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C52B35.363C7500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageMy guess is that the actual 'worst case' in auto use is not at = high throttle but at idle on a blistering hot day, stranded in traffic, = with the AC cranked full blast. THAT is when you have the minimum pump = pressure and need the minimum resistance to flow. Tracy (water going through two 5/8" hoses) Yeah, I thought Tracy and yourself were using the smaller hoses = with the pretty AN fittings, and there is no doubt that Tracy at least = has been successful (and I'm sure you'll be right behind him :-), 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. Now maybe we can get away with less, but then the argument that = the EWP can't possibly have enough flow because of our higher heat = output is invalid. Maybe we can get away with smaller hoses, or maybe we = can get away with an EWP, but can we get away with smaller hoses AND an = EWP??? Because I knew that many were watching closely as mine was the = first known aircraft use of an EWP (some hoping for success and many = expecting failure), I decided that 1.25" hoses were mandatory. I'd = originally started my installation with 1" hose, but changed my mind on = this before I was even completed that part of the installation. Todd If I'm not mistaken, Tracy is using 3/4" hoses??? I've been using = AN12 hoses, with two evap cores in series, and there has never been a = question of cooling the water on the RV-3, even in severe climb tests. = The antique mechanical pump does have a lot of muscle, and might be = making up for it though, and I still haven't found a way to test the EWP = by itself in flight. ------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C52B35.363C7500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
My guess is that the actual 'worst case' in auto use is not at high = throttle but at idle on a blistering hot day, stranded in traffic, with = the AC=20 cranked full blast.  THAT is when you have the minimum pump = pressure and=20 need the minimum resistance to flow.
 
Tracy  (water going through two 5/8" hoses)

    Yeah, I thought Tracy and = yourself=20 were using the smaller hoses with the pretty AN fittings, and there is = no=20 doubt that Tracy at least has been successful (and I'm sure you'll be = right=20 behind him :-), but I still stand by my theory that if the automakers = use no=20 less than 1.25" hoses, then why would should we when we have a higher = heat=20 rejection requirement.
   =20 Now maybe we can get away = with less, but=20 then the argument that the EWP can't possibly have enough flow because = of our=20 higher heat output is invalid. Maybe we can get away with smaller = hoses, or=20 maybe we can get away with an EWP, but can we get away with smaller = hoses AND=20 an EWP???
   =20 Because I knew that many = were watching=20 closely as mine was the first known aircraft use of an EWP (some = hoping for=20 success and many expecting failure), I decided that 1.25" hoses were=20 mandatory. I'd originally started my installation with 1" hose, but = changed my=20 mind on this before I was even completed that part of the=20 installation.
 
Todd

 
If I'm not = mistaken, Tracy is=20 using 3/4" hoses???  I've been using AN12 hoses, with = two evap=20 cores in series, and there has never been a question of cooling = the=20 water on the RV-3, even in severe climb = tests.  The antique=20 mechanical pump does have a lot of muscle, and might be making = up=20 for it though, and I still haven't found a way to test the EWP = by=20 itself in flight.
 
  
=
------=_NextPart_000_01A2_01C52B35.363C7500--