Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.167; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <423EE3CA.5040003@frontiernet.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:10:02 -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-813251@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-813251@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

9 amps is not bad.  18 amps on TO and climb is manageable (again, if 
you've got the charging system from HELL).  Another 9 amps on top of all 
the other stuff in the event of alternator failure will still be a big 
deal by any standard.  The notion of EDWP in series with EWP didn't make 
much sense to me until now.  It might buy me a little better flow for TO 
and climb, and give me some time that EDWP wouldn't in the event of belt 
failure, and less current draw in the event of other alternator failure 
not involving the belt. 
Hmmmmmm ... Jim S.

WRJJRS@aol.com wrote:

>     <... really want a good alternator and backup ...>
>     You got THAT right.  What with fuel pumps, injectors, ignition and
>     now
>     two water pumps, we will need the stoutest electrical system in all
>     Christendom.
>     Has anyone inquired of D-C about a dirt simple check valve option
>     on the
>     pump? ... Jim S.
>
> Yes, absolutely Jim. On the second question I don't think so but it 
> sure seems an obvious needed goodie for parallel flow systems. FWIW 
> Davies Craig claims only 9 amp draw for their pump! This makes it even 
> more amazing that it works. Perhaps they have a exceptionally 
> efficient pump design. It (the D-C pump) does look better than the 
> pumps that
> mimic a standard edwp, looking more like a turbocharger scroll.
> Bill Jepson