Return-Path: <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5)
  with ESMTP id 2644469 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:53:50 -0400
Received: from nc.rr.com (cpe-024-211-190-025.nc.rr.com [24.211.190.25])
	by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id h9L2rmhf010815
	for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:53:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3F949D8B.10504@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:44:27 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP check valves
References: <list-2644308@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine

William wrote:
> Actually, with a long run, the larger diameter hose is called for to keep
> the pressure loss down going to and from the remote radiator. Is it 7 ft
> *each way* (14 ft total)?
> Bill Schertz
> 

Yep.  From the engine compartment, all the way back behind the cockpit.

> 
>>Where did the 2" hose requirement come from?  Wasn't Tracy running with
> 
> 5/8" hose to his radiators?  Can we get a survey of working installations to
> see what size hose is sufficient?
> 
>>This is a significant issue for me.  I'm considering a remotely located
> 
> radiator.  Running 2" hose for 7ft or so is out of the question.
> 
>>
> 
> 
> 
>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>> Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
> 


-- 
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
   alleviated by information and experience."
                                   Veeduber