Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42275923.3060803@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 12:36:19 -0600
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Test Results/DRAG
References: <list-768669@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-768669@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


kenpowell@comcast.net wrote:

> I think Al and Bill have been trying to say this politely but ....   
> We all agree that the EWP flows less than the standard pump by alot 
> (maybe only half to 1/3th as much?).  That's OK.  But if you have less 
> flow then the radiator MUST be larger for the engine to obtain equal 
> cooling. 

 >>> I thought less flow might be partially / substantially compensated 
for by greater dT you would achieve from slower flow through the same 
radiator.  Is this not significant?

> This equates to more drag.  Now does the EWP save more energy than the 
> ~3HP the mechanical pump uses even when the extra cooling drag in 
> factored?  In other words, does the EWP save 3HP worth of cooling 
> drag?  I suspect that the mechanical pump is more effecient but can't 
> prove it.  Bill, Al, Ed and some of the engineers can probably give us 
> a good idea though (and have).  No numbers here, I'm just trying to 
> piont out the real issue - energy expended at WOT, cruise, and climb.
>