Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <423E536C.4020203@frontiernet.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 22:54:04 -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: BMW and EWP
References: <list-812801@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-812801@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I'm gone from time to time and sometimes miss posts. Guess I sometimes 
miss threads. I was of the evidently mistaken impression that the dyno 
tests were from a large reservoir through the engine back to the 
reservoir - not through any kind of realistic simulation of the cooling 
system in the plane.

My own partiality toward EWP stems from the fact that I've thrown some 
belts and anticipate throwing some more. Perhaps not on a rotary, but I 
can live with an electrical failure a lot better than with a coolant 
failure.

And it would be nice to watch PL squirm when surrounded by flying EWPs 
:o) ... Jim S.


Al Gietzen wrote:

> Jim;
>
> I have reported here 3 or 4 times before that I have measured the flow 
> through my engine and the dyno cooling loop provided by the engine 
> driven pump; and it correlates quite well with what I calculated the 
> flow requirements to be for something near optimum for aircraft use.
>
> We have also repeatedly been over the issue that; all other things 
> remaining the same, the higher the flow rate the better the cooling. 
> Lower flow simply means higher delta T, and lower average radiator 
> temps. No, we don’t know what the minimal needs are in regard to 
> keeping thermal stresses from being an issue in the engine.
>
> And I agree that whether BMW wants to design for, and use, and EPW or 
> not is irrelevant to our application, and the exchange have mostly 
> been in the spirit of fun.
>
> I am not “against” the use of EWPs in our airplanes. My position is 
> simply that unless you have a “need” for configuration reasons, there 
> is no technical reason to enter into that realm of whatever the 
> unknowns are for this application.
>
> Al
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] 
> *On Behalf Of *Jim Sower
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 20, 2005 12:41 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP
>
> Wasn't someone talking about the 12-16 GPM his EWP was pumping through 
> his [not running, no EDWP] engine? Assuming 2-3 gal capacity, that 
> circulates every bit of coolant through the system 5 or 6 times per 
> minute. That's an entire cycle of coolant every 10 seconds or less. 
> That sounds pretty fast to me.
>
> Does anyone *actually know* what the flow through a rotary is with 
> EDWP? I mean, like *measured* (the other list can be relied upon to 
> /calculate/ stuff). Just as important, does anyone *actually know* how 
> far open/closed a thermostat is in our applications. I know some folks 
> don't have thermostats installed. Is it possible that EDWP might be 
> circulating coolant so fast it doesn't have time to cool off much in 
> the radiator or heat up much in the block? That the same system would 
> work as well at lower flow? Or something like that?
>
> It seems to me that all this quibbling about Beemer power levels on 
> the autobahn ignore the obvious fact that as Leon has attested, EWP 
> works quite well on the race tracks of Oz. I would hazard a guess that 
> the stress on the system (WOT nearly all the time, maybe 1/3 the Q 
> through the cooling system, SL summer temps rather than cruising much 
> faster (3x the Q) at 80% at much higher/cooler altitudes) would hold a 
> lot more water than a bunch of Beemer marketing brochures.
>
> The other list is forever making pronouncements about what will or 
> will not work. Their math is *impeccable*. The premises they operate 
> from are *not* Is it not possible that we are overlooking or 
> underemphasizing some important factor? That the hybrid (EWP /and/ 
> EDWP) systems we have online now are distorting the data? Leon's 
> experience cannot ignore any of the factors. Our estimates can ignore 
> as many as we want to (or are unaware of). I can't help but think that 
> a little morel hard data gathered from a purely EWP system will put a 
> lot of the controversy to rest.
>
> A /flawless/ line of reasoning, based on a /false premise/ leads us 
> /right through the lookin' glass/ ...
> Jim S.
>
>
> Leon wrote:
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>
>     *From:* Al Gietzen <mailto:ALVentures@cox.net>
>
>     *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>
>     *Sent:* Sunday, March 20, 2005 5:45 PM
>
>     *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP
>
>     In a message dated 3/18/2005 11:24:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>     ALVentures@cox.net <mailto:ALVentures@cox.net> writes:
>
>         Let’s say the rated hp is at 4800 rpm. The only time you
>         approach rated power with this car is WOT at 4800 rpm at
>         sealevel on a 60F day. How long would you ever sustain that
>         condition.
>
>         Al
>
>     Al, How about 100mph for 20 minutes on the autoban?
>
>     Bill
>
>     Ah-h-h-h; you’re getting close now. That‘s probably about 80%
>     power. But you’d probably have to stop once to pay a toll, and
>     slow down for the Opal that’s driving in the left laneJ. Or maybe
>     they don’t sell the EWP version in Germany.
>
>     All
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>
>  
>