Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.166; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <421FEE96.1050007@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:35:50 -0600
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator
References: <list-759264@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-759264@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

As you wish. I have a rule though: "... when Leon's talkin', Jim needs 
to be listenin' ...". By the time I'm ready, EWP will be more proven 
than they are now. I figure that what's designed to work in a race is a 
good candidate for aircraft use. What's designed to work in an 
automobile at 1000 - 2000 rpm needs some work to operate efficiently at 
6000 rpm.

I got to go with my man ... Jim S.

Bulent Aliev wrote:

> Jim, I have a business selling DC pumps and will not dare replace my 
> engine driven pump with an DC electric. NO WAY!
> Todd is getting away with it in the frozen North, but I doubt it it 
> will make it here. I have by my desk a 15 GPM 12V pump with 1” ports. 
> This thing is bigger (about twice) and heavier than standard Lycoming 
> starter. If the weight was not an issue, this is the pump I would 
> consider as a minimum. Also I don’t like converting the engine’s 
> energy into electric and than converting again into kinetic? Sorry to 
> say on this issue I’m with PL.
> Buly
>
> On 2/25/05 12:08 PM, "Jim Sower" <canarder@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>     IIRC EWP is a lot more *efficient* than EDWP (absorbs much less
>     power). Dual EWPs make the system a couple of orders of magnitude
>     more reliable than single EWP and arguably single EDWP.
>
>     A bullet proof electrical system makes EWP *very* attractive to me
>     ... Jim S.
>
>
>