Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.68] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 760369 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:23:18 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.68; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050226142234.VJKU1995.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:22:34 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP; was E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:23:06 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c51c0e$b21d9450$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C51BDC.67832450" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C51BDC.67832450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was kinda hoping you'd remove the water pump altogether for testing, but I forgot that you are using the stock alternator mount that incorporates the WP. I really wouldn't suggest that you take-off without an alternator as this is not only an unnecessary risk, but also wouldn't provide any realistic test data. The pump can provide much greater flow when supplied with 13.8 volts than it can at <12 volts. Good point Todd. All this talk of dual EWP's has forced me to look at the possibility again. One thing that would save me a lot of work would be to keep the water pump housing. I could just remove the pump, and put a plate over the opening. Keeping the housing would preserve my water inlet, outlet, filler cap, temp senders, and alternator mount. Then it would "simply" be a matter of installing the second EWP, making new fittings, and changing the hoses. I'll take the other EWP back to the hanger today to stare at it some. Cheers, Rusty (go goon girls) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C51BDC.67832450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

I was kinda hoping you'd = remove the=20 water pump altogether for testing, but I forgot that you are using the = stock=20 alternator mount that incorporates the WP. I really wouldn't suggest = that=20 you take-off without an alternator as this is not only an = unnecessary=20 risk, but also wouldn't provide any realistic test data. The pump can = provide=20 much greater flow when supplied with 13.8 volts than it can at <12=20 volts.  

 Good point Todd. =20

All this = talk of dual=20 EWP's has forced me to look at the possibility again. =20 One thing that would save me a lot of work = would be to=20 keep the water pump housing.  I could just remove the pump, and put = a plate=20 over the opening.  Keeping the housing would preserve my water = inlet,=20 outlet, filler cap, temp senders, and alternator mount.  Then it = would=20 "simply" be a matter of installing the second EWP, making new fittings, = and=20 changing the hoses.  I'll take the other EWP back to the hanger = today to=20 stare at it some. 

Cheers,

Rusty (go = goon=20 girls) 

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C51BDC.67832450--