X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from pan.gwi.net ([207.5.128.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTPS id 2874243 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:29:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.5.128.165; envelope-from=silvius@gwi.net Received: from yourlk4rlmsu41 (bb-216-195-174-159.gwi.net [216.195.174.159]) by pan.gwi.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id m3RGSiZJ056356 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:28:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from silvius@gwi.net) Message-ID: <005e01c8a88c$219bde10$9faec3d8@yourlk4rlmsu41> From: "Michael Silvius" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:28:36 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01C8A862.36F757A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C8A862.36F757A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed: I am already headed down the path of conventional orientation on the = engine and welded up my engine mount that way but you know, now that I = think about it plugs down is one may to shorten the induction run on a = carbureted gravity fed system. hmmmmm...... I may have to change course here!!!! it may solve a heap of issues. = Question is what new ones will it create? Michael ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 10:26 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Hi Michael, Good to hear from you again. Take some photos and post them to the = list of your project when you get a chance. Well, I must admit I'm a bit biased toward the standard mechanical = pump. However, I am also flying with my 13B rotated 90 Degs (Plugs Up) = to move certain high profile items below the cowl line (Initially, I = really it was because I hated doing cowl fiberglass work - now, I just = don't like it {:>)). So I believe there are times and conditions that perhaps justify = departing from the norm. I am certainly not against electric pumps (I = mean, I use three electric pumps for my fuel system - certainly a = critical system). I think there may be conditions and constraints were = an electric water pump is the answer. But, as I mentioned, early on I was faced with objects (alternators, = water pump inlets, distributor, etc, sticking above my cowl line. By = rotating the engine 90 deg that solved that problem, made the exhaust = outlet easier and provide much more room on the side for experimenting = with induction systems. Also it position my injectors so they were no = longer "above" the hot exhaust manifold - so fuel leaks were not as = likely to hit it. Despite some few individuals who mandated that the = engine just would not operate in that orientation, its worked fine for = over 400 hours and 10 years. However, they are three major downsides (none of a technical nature) = of the "Plugs Up" approach, which why I would not normally recommend it. = 1. I would no longer have a unique "Plugs Up" installation {:>) 2. You will need to build a oil sump to accommodate the new = orientation of the oil system - certainly not difficult, but something = you would have to do. 3. Most of the products produced by vendors for the flying rotary are = made for the automobile orientation of the engine .=20 I had to modify the motor mounts of the RWS gear box to fit it. = Again not a major problem but one that would have to be addressed. People have addressed the high profile items in other ways, such as = moving the alternator mounting to a different location, machining down = and welding on a adapter water pump inlet. using the Crank Angle Sensor = (very much lower than the distributor) - but, which then requires an = ignition computer. (Might as well get the EC2 from RWS and have both = your ignition and injector computer). So as you know, its all doable - its been done before by various folks = in different ways, some may pop up and offer their solutions. Best Regards Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michael Silvius=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:56 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Ed: I have been thinking about a similar set up as those electric water = pumps but more on order of a remote mechanical water pump in order to = get rid of the original heavy cast iron cartridge and the tall housing. = I have been unable to locate a water pump that would be like those = electric stand alone units but minus the electric motor. My thought = would be mounting it as one perhaps would mount an alternator. In my = case I seem to have a god bit of room on the lower back end of the = engine. An other thought on installation was a direct drive with a = coupling of the back pulley. My natural apprehension is messing with a = system that we know works. So I may wind up with a bump or two on my = cowl to accommodate it as well as the distributor. Michael in Maine Falconar F-12 progressing at glacial pace. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Electric Water pumps - Interesting I was just thumbing through a recent catalog from Summit Racing = and came across a couple of pages on electric water pumps. There has = always been a degree of interest (and some debate {:>)) regarding the = use of electric water pumps in aircraft. It was interesting to read = some of the descriptions, but basically the current consumed ranged from = 4 - 9 amps and the quoted flow rate (presumably without back pressure) = was from 16-35 gpm. So if you take 9 amps at say 14 volts =3D 126 watts =3D 0.167 HP = to get that flow. However, some of them indicate you can save 15 - 20 = engine HP at HIGH rpm. So why the difference? Apparently (my best guess) is that they are advertising their = product to best advantage (surprise?). I would suspect that the flow = rates shown are without back pressure and that when attached to a real = engine coolant system that : 1. The flow rates would decrease=20 2. The current requirements would increase.=20 However, not to the point the electric pump would be required to = make 10HP or more to provide the required flow. I suspect there are = considerable losses (such as pump cavitation and pressure drops through = the cooling galleys)with mechanical pumps at high pump rpm as driven by = a high revving engine which accounts for the high power requirements. = Whereas the electric driven pumps may operate at lower and more = efficient rpm without the majority of those losses. That said, the pumps cost range from around $200 - $400 and while = no weights were given, basic on the photographs showing the heavy = electric motors and additional plumbing would not appear to offer any = significant weight savings over the proven, reliable mechanical pumps = most of us are using.=20 So while certainly interesting and perhaps of value in some = aircraft installations(how would you like to gain an additional 10 HP on = takeoff?), I remain confident in my old 86 13B water pump housing and = cartridge which is still going strong after 10 years. I have moved it = from my first 86 N/A engine to my current 91 turbo block, so it has = performed for over 10 years in two different engines without any = problem. Interestingly, of the 11 electrical water pumps advertised, only = one was specified for drag race use only - and it had the lowest current = drain - 3.5 amps. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html ------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C8A862.36F757A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Ed:
 
I am already headed down the path of = conventional=20 orientation on the engine and welded up my engine mount that way but you = know,=20 now that I think about it plugs down is one may to shorten the = induction=20 run on a carbureted gravity fed system. hmmmmm......
I may have to change course here!!!! it = may solve a=20 heap of issues. Question is what new ones will it create?
 
Michael
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 = 10:26=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Electric Water=20 pumps - Interesting

Hi Michael,
 
Good to hear from you again.  = Take some=20 photos and post them to the list of your project when you get a=20 chance.
 
Well, I must admit I'm a bit biased = toward the=20 standard mechanical pump.  However, I am also flying with my 13B = rotated=20 90 Degs (Plugs Up) to move certain high profile items below the cowl = line=20 (Initially, I really it was because I hated=20 doing cowl fiberglass work - now, I just don't like it=20 {:>)).
 
So  I believe there are times = and=20 conditions that perhaps justify departing from the norm. I am = certainly=20 not against electric pumps (I mean, I use three electric pumps for my = fuel=20 system - certainly a critical system).  I think there may be=20 conditions and constraints were an electric water pump is the=20 answer.
 
But, as I mentioned, early on I was = faced with=20 objects (alternators, water pump inlets, distributor, etc, sticking = above my=20 cowl line.  By rotating the engine 90 deg that solved that = problem, made=20 the exhaust outlet easier and provide much more room on the side for=20 experimenting with induction systems.  Also it position my = injectors so=20 they were no longer "above" the hot exhaust manifold - so fuel leaks = were not=20 as likely to hit it.  Despite some few individuals who = mandated that=20 the engine just would not operate in that orientation, its worked fine = for=20 over 400 hours and 10 years.
 
  However, they are three = major=20 downsides (none of a technical nature) of the "Plugs Up" approach, = which why I=20 would not normally recommend it. 
 
1.  I would no longer have a = unique "Plugs=20 Up" installation {:>)
 
2.  You will need to build a oil = sump to=20 accommodate the new orientation of the oil system - certainly not = difficult,=20 but something you would have to do.
 
3.  Most of the products = produced by=20 vendors for the flying rotary are made for the automobile orientation = of the=20 engine . 
 
 I had to modify the motor = mounts of the=20 RWS gear box to fit it.  Again not a major problem but one that = would=20 have to be addressed.
 
People have addressed the high = profile items in=20 other ways, such as moving the alternator mounting to a different = location,=20 machining down and welding on a adapter water pump inlet.  using = the=20 Crank Angle Sensor (very much lower than the distributor) - but, which = then=20 requires an ignition computer.  (Might as well get the EC2 from = RWS and=20 have both your ignition and injector computer).
 
So as you know, its all doable - its = been done=20 before by various folks in different ways, some may pop up and offer = their=20 solutions.
 
Best Regards
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Michael = Silvius=20
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 = 11:56=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Electric Water=20 pumps - Interesting

Ed:
 
I have been thinking about a = similar set up as=20 those electric water pumps but more on order of a remote = mechanical=20 water pump in order to get rid of the original heavy cast iron = cartridge and=20 the tall housing. I have been unable to locate a water pump that = would be=20 like those electric stand alone units but minus the electric = motor. My=20 thought would be mounting it as one perhaps would mount an = alternator. In my=20 case I seem to have a god bit of room on the lower back end of the = engine.=20 An other thought on installation was a direct drive with a coupling = of the=20 back pulley. My natural apprehension is messing with a system that = we know=20 works. So I may wind up with a bump or two on my cowl to accommodate = it as=20 well as the distributor.
 
Michael in Maine
Falconar F-12 progressing at = glacial=20 pace.
 
 
 
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, April 27, = 2008 9:31=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Electric Water=20 pumps - Interesting

I was just thumbing through a = recent=20 catalog from Summit Racing and came across a couple of pages on = electric=20 water pumps.  There has always been a degree of interest = (and=20 some debate {:>)) regarding the use of electric water pumps in=20 aircraft.   It was interesting to read some of the = descriptions,=20 but basically the current consumed ranged from 4 - 9 amps and = the=20 quoted flow rate (presumably without back pressure) was from 16-35 = gpm.
 
So if you take 9 amps at say 14 = volts =3D 126=20 watts =3D 0.167 HP to get that flow.  However, some of them = indicate=20 you can save 15 - 20 engine HP at HIGH rpm.  So why the=20 difference?
 
  Apparently (my best guess) = is that=20 they are advertising their product to best advantage = (surprise?).  I=20 would suspect that the flow rates shown are without back pressure = and that=20 when attached to a real engine coolant system = that :
 
1.  The flow rates would = decrease=20
2.  The current requirements = would=20 increase. 
 
 However, not to the point = the=20 electric pump would be required to make 10HP or more to provide = the=20 required flow.  I suspect there are considerable losses (such = as pump=20 cavitation and pressure drops through the cooling galleys)with = mechanical=20 pumps  at high pump rpm as driven by a high revving engine = which=20 accounts for the high power requirements.  Whereas the = electric=20 driven pumps may operate at lower and more efficient rpm without = the=20 majority of those losses.
 
That said, the pumps cost range = from around=20 $200 - $400 and while no weights were given, basic on = the=20 photographs showing the heavy electric motors and additional = plumbing=20  would not appear to offer any significant weight savings = over the=20 proven, reliable mechanical pumps most of us are = using. 
 
 So while certainly = interesting and=20 perhaps of value in some aircraft installations(how would you like = to gain=20 an additional 10 HP on takeoff?), I remain confident in my old 86 = 13B=20 water pump housing and cartridge which is still going strong after = 10=20 years.  I have moved it from my first 86 N/A engine to my = current 91=20 turbo block, so it has performed for over 10 years in two = different=20 engines without any problem.
 
Interestingly, of  the =  11=20 electrical water pumps advertised, only one was specified for drag = race=20 use only - and it had the lowest current drain - 3.5 = amps.
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW = Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.comhttp://www.andersonee.com
http:/= /members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda= /index.html
------=_NextPart_000_005B_01C8A862.36F757A0--