Return-Path: Received: from imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.67] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 760068 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:18:44 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.67; envelope-from=sqpilot@bellsouth.net Received: from [209.214.44.87] by imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050226031757.HIMQ2072.imf19aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[209.214.44.87]> for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:17:57 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.0.300 [266.5.0]); Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:17:48 -0600 Message-ID: <007101c51bb1$ba67e6e0$572cd6d1@paul52u7f5qyav> From: "Paul" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:03:36 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-421FEA5C7809=======" --=======AVGMAIL-421FEA5C7809======= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0045_01C51B7D.7949F880" ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C51B7D.7949F880 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageI was not trying to imply that an EWP is more reliable than a = belt. I said that I really like that idea. Our canard pushers have the = control systems running along the firewall, where a broken belt can take = them out in an instant. I don't like that. An engine without belts...I = like that. I don't know if an EWP is more reliable than a belt. I do know, = however that it is better designed for a cooling system than a belt = driven waterpump. A belt driven water pump slows down at idle, where = there is typically less airflow through the radiator. Right when you = need the most flow, the belt driven water pump goes on vacation. The EWP = on the other hand, senses the rise in coolant temperature, and increases = flow even at an idle. The belt driven water pump cannot do that. = Conversely, while at cruise and you have more air cooling the radiator, = it is then that the belt driven water pump really kicks in, due to the = engine's higher rpm's. The EWP is smarter than that. It realizes that = you are not at wide open throttle, and at cruise, and slows down the = flow. Paul Conner ----- Original Message -----=20 From: William=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:37 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Your comment below implies that an EWP is *more* reliable than a belt. = I don't think that has been shown to be the case yet.=20 Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045 With an alternator driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an = engine that required no belts. I REALLY like that idea. Did I say I = REALLY like that idea? Paul Conner -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005 ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C51B7D.7949F880 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I was not trying to imply that an EWP = is more=20 reliable than a belt. I said that I really like that idea. Our canard = pushers=20 have the control systems running along the firewall, where a broken belt = can=20 take them out in an instant.  I don't like that.  An engine = without=20 belts...I like that.
     I don't know = if an EWP is=20 more reliable than a belt. I do know, however that it is better designed = for a=20 cooling system than a belt driven waterpump. A belt driven water pump = slows down=20 at idle, where there is typically less airflow through the radiator. = Right when=20 you need the most flow, the belt driven water pump goes on vacation. The = EWP on=20 the other hand, senses the rise in coolant temperature, and increases = flow even=20 at an idle. The belt driven water pump cannot do that.  Conversely, = while=20 at cruise and you have more air cooling the radiator, it is then that = the belt=20 driven water pump really kicks in, due to the engine's higher = rpm's.  The=20 EWP is smarter than that. It realizes that you are not at wide open = throttle,=20 and at cruise, and slows down the flow. Paul Conner
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 William=20
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 = 9:37=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = E-shaft=20 permanent magnet alternator

Your comment below implies that an = EWP is *more*=20 reliable than a belt. I don't think that has been shown to be the case = yet.=20
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # = 4045
With an=20 alternator driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an engine = that=20 required no belts.  I REALLY like that idea.   Did I = say I=20 REALLY like that idea?  Paul=20 Conner

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG=20 Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release = Date:=20 2/25/2005
------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C51B7D.7949F880-- --=======AVGMAIL-421FEA5C7809======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.0 - Release Date: 2/25/2005 --=======AVGMAIL-421FEA5C7809=======--