Return-Path: Received: from [207.30.191.53] (account ) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.0) with HTTP id 1841237 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:09:05 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: EWP TechDataTake 1,000,000 ... To: flyrotary X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.4.0 Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 08:09:05 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <008801c27872$3bff7f00$284ffea9@suwanneevalley.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for "Tracy Crook" : Just to add fuel to the confusion factor, I would say that varying the flow through the system is a very poor way to control temperature. For one thing, it won't do any such thing. Slowing down the coolant will only increase the temp at the far end of its path through the engine. It will have the OPPOSITE effect at the point where coolant enters the engine, thus increasing the temperature differential between the two ends of the system. This is not a good thing. I'm not saying that the thermostat should be retained but Mazda's double acting thermostat was designed to eliminate this factor by bypassing the radiator when excess cooling was available (not usually a factor in aircraft use). I agree with Leon that eliminating the thermostat is probably a big factor in allowing the EWP to work correctly. Nothing is simple is it? Tracy Crook tcrook@rotaryaviation.com www.rotaryaviation.com > > The speed controller probably makes sense in a car but my guess is that it > > would be just another source of failure in an aircraft application. I'd run > > it wide open.