X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2384255 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:12:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from [192.168.0.19] (really [66.57.38.121]) by cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20071013011216.JUKF2011.cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com@[192.168.0.19]> for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2007 01:12:16 +0000 Message-ID: <47101BE3.3070608@nc.rr.com> Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:14:11 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.13 (X11/20070824) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: FW: [FlyRotary] Re: Coolant Water Pressure References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Al Wick wrote: > That's quite the surprise. Japanese engineers are expert at making sure the design has extra safety margin. Even back in the 70's. Although they are much better at it now. I can't imagine they are rpm sensitive 33 years later. > > I have heard of a lot of guys adding flow restrictions on pump inlet, not aware they are increasing pressure drop. Particularly true with fuel systems. > > -al wick > It's back to compromises, Al. Have it pump good at 2000RPM. Have it pump good at 6000RPM. You can't get both in this universe. So you design for somewhere in the middle...and hope some fool doesn't go to thinking that he can put the thing in an airplane 8*)