Return-Path: Received: from [216.52.245.18] (HELO ispwestemail2.mdeinc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 760096 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 22:35:19 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.52.245.18; envelope-from=wschertz@ispwest.com Received: from 7n7z201 (unverified [67.136.145.201]) by ispwestemail2.mdeinc.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.340.3) with SMTP id for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:34:33 -0800 Message-ID: <00b401c51bb4$15099560$25928843@7n7z201> From: "William" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:34:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C51B81.C99C4500" 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 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C51B81.C99C4500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageGood point about the belt taking out your controls. I know Todd = has been successful so far, and I wish him continued good fortune. = Myself, I would like the PM type alternator to act as a supplement to a = regular alternator to give me longer to run with the all electric = airplane. If you have an EWP, I believe that you *must* have a second source of = current. Add up the loads, Mark S reads 17 amps for the ignition and = fuel pumps, the EWP is 3-5? and if you run any other equipment you are = easily over 20 amps. A 17 AHr battery will give you 17 A-hr only at the = ~20 hr rate, i.e. at about 1 amp draw. At 20 amp draw, the life will be = considerably shorter. Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Paul=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:03 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator I 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 ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C51B81.C99C4500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Good point about the belt taking out = your controls.=20 I know Todd has been successful so far, and I wish him continued good = fortune.=20 Myself, I would like the PM type alternator to act as a supplement to a = regular=20 alternator to give me longer to run with the all electric = airplane.
 
If you have an EWP, I believe that you = *must* have=20 a second source of current. Add up the loads, Mark S reads 17 amps for = the=20 ignition and fuel pumps, the EWP is 3-5? and if you run any other = equipment you=20 are easily over 20 amps. A 17 AHr battery will give you 17 A-hr only at = the ~20=20 hr rate, i.e. at about 1 amp draw. At 20 amp draw, the life will be = considerably=20 shorter.
 
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Paul=20
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 = 9:03=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = E-shaft=20 permanent magnet alternator

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=20 is more reliable than a belt. I do know, however that it is better = designed=20 for a cooling system than a belt driven waterpump. A belt driven water = pump=20 slows down at idle, where there is typically less airflow through the=20 radiator. Right when you need the most flow, the belt driven water = pump goes=20 on vacation. The EWP on the other hand, senses the rise in coolant=20 temperature, and increases flow even at an idle. The belt driven water = pump=20 cannot do that.  Conversely, while at cruise and you have more = air=20 cooling the radiator, it is then that the belt driven water pump = really kicks=20 in, due to the engine's higher rpm's.  The EWP is smarter than = that. It=20 realizes that you are not at wide open throttle, and at cruise, and = slows down=20 the flow. Paul Conner
  ------=_NextPart_000_00B1_01C51B81.C99C4500--