From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Tech Data
To: flyrotary
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 18:51:16 -0400
Message-ID: <web-1831774@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <3DAFD191.9108.29D749@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for kenpowell@alltel.net:
Hi Ed, Todd, Rusty, Leon, and List,
       First of all, I want everyone to know that I really want Todd's testing 
to be 
successful - this would solve a lot of problems for me.  I have been on record 
as 
doubtful of the ability of any EWP to flow enough coolant at a reasonalble amp 
level 
but you guys are making me wonder if some of our assumptions are 
wrong/incomplete.  But I am also a pragmatist - maybe some of our prior 
assumptions are wrong.  Thanks to Todd and Leon we will soon know the true 
skinny on this subject. 
       Just as another bench mark, Powersport shared some of their 
instrumented 
data 
for us.  Their cooling system with a stock waterpump flowing thru a crossflow 
radiator at 35 GPM and they had trouble cooling their 215 HP above 90 degrees 
at 
a max rate climb (sound familiar).  They changed over to a standard radiator 
(straight flow???) and the flow rate went up to 57 GPH (can anyone verify my 
memory here) - note that their cooling problems went away.  They can now cool 
215 
HP in a max rate climb for a RV-6 on a 100 degree day.  Pretty impressive to 
me! 

Ken Powell 


>  As Leon points out the 80 lit/min flow is equivalent to approx 25 US
>  gallons/min. The only 
> figure I recall seeing on theMazda(if memory serves me correctly)
> coolant is approx 13 GPM flow. If that is the case, then thedata on
> the EWP indicates it will have no problem meeting the flow needs of
> the rotary. .