Return-Path: Received: from mail.viclink.com ([66.129.220.6] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2633800 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 11:41:15 -0400 Received: from viclink.com (p159.AS1.viclink.com [66.129.192.159]) by mail.viclink.com (8.11.7/8.11.7) with ESMTP id h9CFfA564430 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3F897586.7020206@viclink.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 08:38:46 -0700 From: Perry Mick User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP - series pumps and wacky ideas References: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000406000901070400090604" X-RAVMilter-Version: 8.4.3(snapshot 20030217) (mail.viclink.com) --------------000406000901070400090604 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > > FWIW, this is the same philosophy that I use with my fuel pumps. > I check them individually as a pre-flight item, then run them both > during flight. My reasoning for this is to virtually eliminate the > possibility of an in-flight fuel pump emergency. I'd MUCH rather find > out that one of my pumps has died while I'm safely on the ground, than > to experience the anxiety of having the engine quit in flight. The > other plus is eliminating emergency checklist items. If all > your backup systems are already running, and the engine quits, you > might as well just concentrate on landing dead stick. The only > downsides are a bit more current draw, and wear and tear on the > pumps. If the alt fails, I'll turn off one fuel pump, and one EWP to > save some energy. If I have to replace the pumps within a few years, > big deal. It'll be the cheapest thing I've done on this plane :-) > > I do the same thing Rusty, I just run both fuel pumps all the time. If you run one pump and it fails, the engine will stop running immediately. If you run an EWP and it fails, your engine won't quit immediately, so you would have a little time to switch over to the other EWP. -- Perry Mick http://www.ductedfan.com --------------000406000901070400090604 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote:
Message

 
FWIW, this is the same philosophy that I use with my fuel pumps.  I check them individually as a pre-flight item, then run them both during flight.  My reasoning for this is to virtually eliminate the possibility of an in-flight fuel pump emergency.  I'd MUCH rather find out that one of my pumps has died while I'm safely on the ground, than to experience the anxiety of having the engine quit in flight.  The other plus is eliminating emergency checklist items.  If all your backup systems are already running, and the engine quits, you might as well just concentrate on landing dead stick.   The only downsides are a bit more current draw, and wear and tear on the pumps.  If the alt fails, I'll turn off one fuel pump, and one EWP to save some energy.  If I have to replace the pumps within a few years, big deal.  It'll be the cheapest thing I've done on this plane :-) 

  
I do the same thing Rusty, I just run both fuel pumps all the time. If you run one pump and it fails, the engine will stop running  immediately. If you run an EWP and it fails, your engine won't quit immediately, so you would have a little time to switch over to the other EWP.
-- 
Perry Mick
http://www.ductedfan.com

--------------000406000901070400090604--