|
|
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.
|
|