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 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2874248 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:42:00 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20080427164120.XWSO11174.cdptpa-omta03.mail.rr.com@edward2> for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:41:20 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c8a885$9ea99610$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:42:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A864.175A02B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C8A864.175A02B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Yes, Indeed, Michael. You quickly find out (as I think you already = have) there are NO simply changes on an aircraft - change one thing = (you think) and you'll find it necessary to change at least two other = items {:>). I don't see any reason your concept will not fly (no pun intended), I = must admit I am biased toward EFI, but lets face it - aircraft flew (and = are still flying) without electronic fuel injection and did just fine = with carburetors. Just think it through and try to imagine what could fail/go wrong at = each step and see what your plan B would be. Sometimes plans B will = simply be "Pick out the closest good landing spot" but hopefully = carefully analysis and work will preclude that option being exercised = {:>) Like I said, "Plugs Up" does have its own requirements and I don't = necessarily advocate it - it just was my solution at the time to some = of the problems you are facing. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michael Silvius=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:28 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting 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.=20 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_0006_01C8A864.175A02B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, Indeed, Michael.  You quickly = find out=20 (as I think you already have)  there are NO simply changes on an = aircraft -=20 change one thing (you think) and you'll find it necessary to change at = least two=20 other items {:>).
 
I don't see any reason your concept = will not fly=20 (no pun intended), I must admit I am biased toward EFI, but lets face it = -=20 aircraft flew (and are still flying) without electronic fuel injection = and did=20 just fine with carburetors.
 
Just think it through and try to = imagine what=20 could fail/go wrong at each step and see what your plan B would = be. =20 Sometimes plans B will simply be "Pick out the closest good landing = spot" but=20 hopefully carefully analysis and work will preclude that option being = exercised=20 {:>)
 
Like I said, "Plugs Up" does have its = own=20 requirements and I don't necessarily  advocate it - it just was my = solution=20 at the time to some of the problems you are facing.
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Michael = Silvius=20
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 = 1:28=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Electric Water=20 pumps - Interesting

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=20 a heap of issues. Question is what new ones will it = create?
 
Michael
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
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=20 the standard mechanical pump.  However, I am also flying with = my 13B=20 rotated 90 Degs (Plugs Up) to move certain high profile items below = the cowl=20 line (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=20 with objects (alternators, water pump inlets, distributor, etc, = sticking=20 above my cowl line.  By rotating the engine 90 deg that solved = that=20 problem, made the exhaust outlet easier and provide much more room = on the=20 side for experimenting with induction systems.  Also it = position my=20 injectors so they were no longer "above" the hot exhaust manifold - = so fuel=20 leaks were not as likely to hit it.  Despite some few=20 individuals who mandated that the engine just would not operate = in that=20 orientation, its worked fine for 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=20 I would not normally recommend it. 
 
1.  I would no longer have a = unique=20 "Plugs 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=20 in other ways, such as moving the alternator mounting to a different = location, machining down and welding on a adapter water pump = inlet. =20 using the Crank Angle Sensor (very much lower than the distributor) = - but,=20 which then requires an ignition computer.  (Might as well get = the EC2=20 from RWS and have both your ignition and injector = computer).
 
So as you know, its all doable - = its been=20 done before by various folks in different ways, some may pop up and = offer=20 their 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=20 Water pumps - Interesting

Ed:
 
I have been thinking about a = similar set up=20 as those electric water pumps but more on order of a remote=20 mechanical water pump in order to get rid of the original heavy = cast iron=20 cartridge and the tall housing. I have been unable to locate a = water pump=20 that would be like those electric stand alone units but minus the = electric=20 motor. My thought would be mounting it as one perhaps would = mount an=20 alternator. In my case I seem to have a god bit of room on the = lower back=20 end of the engine. An other thought on installation was a direct = drive=20 with a coupling of the back pulley. My natural apprehension is = messing=20 with a system that we know works. So I may wind up with a bump or = two on=20 my cowl to accommodate it as 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=20 descriptions, but basically the current consumed ranged from 4 = - 9=20 amps and the quoted flow rate (presumably without back pressure) = was=20 from 16-35 gpm.
 
So if you take 9 amps at say 14 = volts =3D=20 126 watts =3D 0.167 HP to get that flow.  However, some of = them=20 indicate you can save 15 - 20 engine HP at HIGH rpm.  = So why=20 the difference?
 
  Apparently (my best = guess) is that=20 they are advertising their product to best advantage = (surprise?). =20 I would suspect that the flow rates shown are without back = pressure and=20 that when attached to a real engine coolant system=20 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=20 pump cavitation and pressure drops through the cooling = galleys)with=20 mechanical pumps  at high pump rpm as driven by a high = revving=20 engine which accounts for the high power requirements.  = Whereas the=20 electric driven pumps may operate at lower and more efficient = rpm=20 without the majority of those losses.
 
That said, the pumps cost range = from=20 around $200 - $400 and while no weights were = given, basic on=20 the photographs showing the heavy electric motors and additional = plumbing  would not appear to offer any significant weight = savings=20 over the proven, reliable mechanical pumps most of us are=20 using. 
 
 So while certainly = interesting and=20 perhaps of value in some aircraft installations(how would you = like to=20 gain an additional 10 HP on takeoff?), I remain confident in my = old 86=20 13B water pump housing and cartridge which is still going strong = after=20 10 years.  I have moved it from my first 86 N/A engine to = my=20 current 91 turbo block, so it has performed for over 10 years in = two=20 different 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_0006_01C8A864.175A02B0--