Return-Path: Received: from frontend2.cwpanama.net ([201.225.225.168] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 521140 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:15:40 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=201.225.225.168; envelope-from=rijakits@cwpanama.net Received: from [201.224.93.110] (HELO usuarioq3efog0) by frontend2.cwpanama.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with SMTP id 30205045 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 06 Nov 2004 23:14:58 -0500 Message-ID: <004a01c4c480$20de15e0$6e5de0c9@usuarioq3efog0> From: "rijakits" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:13:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0045_01C4C456.2F4BB9E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2741.2600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2742.200 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C4C456.2F4BB9E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageHi all, maybe I missed it, but for what reason would you want to run electric = waterpumps? There will never be a moment where you could shut down any or all for = more than a few seconds, so saving fuel/power is not the reason. If you = need a constant flow of water, why would you want to route the necessary = energy from the engine/to the alternator/to the EWP, instead directly = from the engine to the WP? Belt brakes what then? When was the last time a belt broke in your car? = Redundancy? Buy/have it made a set of 2-belt pulleys and exchange the = first belt at 400 hrs or 4 years whatever hits first. This way you have = a new belt and an old one. If the old one ever brakes you the second one = to keep you good until you get there. Change it anyway at 1000 hrs or 5 = years. Is there ANY vehicle out there that relies on an EWP for its cooling = turnover - air, heavy industry, mining, trucking, boats, ships, = anything? ........please forget about racing applications, except you're = building a raceplane:) I know there are aftermarket intercoolers that use a watercircuit with = electric pumps, but are these constantly running? ....do these turn over = that much water? Back to the belts: Robinson Helicopters relies on belts to transmit = 180hp and 280 hp. These belts are lightweight and easily last 2200 hrs = or 10 years, additionally they are used as a clutch to engage the rotor, = average about once every 1 1/2 hours of flight time! If electric drive = would be that much better/lighter/cheaper/safer (pick any one or all!:) = they would run it electric!! Maybe a good discussion for the heck of it and to check the merrits of = it, but I seriously hope no one thinks about flying over hostile terrain = with an electric only cooling setup! Personally I think a dual belt set-up is more than enough, but if you = want hardcore I'd do dual alternator/waterpump with dual belts (a total = of 4 belts), but not electric! Your alternator goes (and mostly it doesn't because of the belt, but = burned circuits, diodes, voltage regulators, etc.), your EWP goes soon = too! How long will your engine run on the battery which already supplies = ignition/fuelinjection/fuelpump/radios/nav. Now you want to use = another2-3 hp out of it? Well a bigger battery will need a heavier = alternator! Besides it is way easier to check belts than to check the condition of = an electric drive.... I don't want to spoil the discussion, but it points into the wrong way = safetywise! You are after a racer or something else special, sorry I didn't catch it = or signed on too late to get the start. But as a general means to pump the cooling through a Rotary, no thanks! Again, check where, anywhere electric pumps are used for longterm, = non-stop cooling - I don't think Aviation should be the testing ground = for a "first time!"=20 (Please don't tell me about oceangoing ships, there things are a little = bigger and heavier and there are at least 2 pumps redundant for EVERY = pump in action, AND they do fail quite often, though not because of = electrics, but foreign objects in the pump, cavitation and erosion = damage...) Thomas Jakits ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Todd Bartrim=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 4:27 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Whoaa, before anybody gets worked up over my current draw figures, I'd = made a mistake in my report and had sent another post correcting it the = next day. Below is the corrected post.... hmmnn, is there a way of going = back into the archives to correct erroneous data, as this same issue = came up once before based on my incorrect data post. Hi Guy's I had a hard time believing the current draw for the pump so I = brought home my good "Fluke" multimeter from work. The one I used last = night was a cheap Digital meter from "Canadian Tire". I seldom use this = one, so I'm not familiar with it but since it is very similar in outward = appearance to my "Fluke 87" I assumed the same functions would apply. = They don't. OK,OK, enough excuses, now for the real current draw. a.. continuous current draw - 4.3 amps=20 b.. max inrush current draw at 100mS - 6.8 amps=20 c.. max inrush current draw at 250uS - 13 amps=20 d.. continuous current draw at minimum controlled flow - .2 amps The max inrush current is not really relevant to our concerns, but = there it is for those that care. This higher current flow is still well within acceptable limits for my = needs, and I expect that while in cruise flight, the controller will be = reducing pump speed and current draw. I've reposted the flow measurements along with this post with the = incorrect current draw deleted. I hope this clears up any confusion = about EWP current requirements. I=20 I ran the first test with the Ford evap cores in the system, = plumbed in parallel. a.. Max flow 9.3 usg/m 35 l/m=20 b.. 12.07 volt battery supply voltage=20 c..=20 Second test had no evap cores in the system. Simply recirced = water through pump - engine - header tank - pump. a.. max flow 13.0 usg/m 49 l/m=20 b.. 12.06 volt battery supply voltage=20 c..=20 Third test, I plumbed in a set of GM (Harrison) evap cores in = parallel, into the system. I hung them just below my mounted Ford cores, = using they same pipe sizes in an effort to have comparable test = conditions. a.. max flow 7.7 usg/m 29 l/m=20 b.. 12.4 volts supply voltage (I hooked a trickle charger to the = battery)=20 c..=20 In each test configuration test results are with heater valve = closed. Heater core added .5 usg/m in each case. In all of the above tests the electronic pump controller was = bypassed to give full battery voltage to the pump. With the pump = controller in use, as the water was cold well water, controller had pump = at minimum flow which was measured at .6 usg/m - 2.2 l/m.=20 I've just been lurking since returning from school as I've got allot = to catch up on around here, so am trying not to get distracted with the = list, however I needed to jump in on this one. I need to head out to the = airport today to install my new radio and hopefully get out for a = flight, as they are calling for 5" of snow tonight. Todd Bartrim RV9Endurance 13B Turbo Rotary C-FSTB http://www3.telus.net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm "The world will always have a place for those that = bring hard work and determination to the things they do." =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C4C456.2F4BB9E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Hi all,
 
maybe I missed it, but for what reason = would you=20 want to run electric waterpumps?
There will never be a moment where you could shut down any or all = for more=20 than a few seconds, so saving fuel/power is not the reason. If you need = a=20 constant flow of water, why would you want to route the necessary energy = from=20 the engine/to the alternator/to the EWP, instead directly from the = engine to the=20 WP?
Belt brakes what then? When was the last time a belt broke in your = car?=20 Redundancy? Buy/have it made a set of 2-belt pulleys and exchange the = first belt=20 at 400 hrs or 4 years whatever hits first. This way you have a new belt = and an=20 old one. If the old one ever brakes you the second one to keep you good = until=20 you get there. Change it anyway at 1000 hrs or 5 years.
Is there ANY vehicle out there that relies on an EWP for its = cooling=20 turnover - air, heavy industry, mining, trucking, boats, ships, = anything?=20 ........please forget about racing applications, except you're building = a=20 raceplane:)
I know there are aftermarket intercoolers that use a watercircuit = with=20 electric pumps, but are these constantly running? ....do these turn over = that=20 much water?
 
Back to the belts: Robinson Helicopters relies on belts to transmit = 180hp=20 and 280 hp. These belts are lightweight and easily last 2200 hrs or 10 = years,=20 additionally they are used as a clutch to engage the rotor, average = about once=20 every 1 1/2 hours of flight time! If electric drive would be that much=20 better/lighter/cheaper/safer (pick any one or all!:) they would run it=20 electric!!
Maybe a good discussion for the heck of it and to check the merrits = of it,=20 but I seriously hope no one thinks about flying over hostile terrain = with an=20 electric only cooling setup!
Personally I think a dual belt set-up is more than enough, but if = you want=20 hardcore I'd do dual alternator/waterpump with dual belts (a total of 4 = belts),=20 but not electric!
Your alternator goes (and mostly it doesn't because of the belt, = but burned=20 circuits, diodes, voltage regulators, etc.), your EWP goes soon too! How = long=20 will your engine run on the battery which already supplies=20 ignition/fuelinjection/fuelpump/radios/nav. Now you want to use = another2-3 hp=20 out of it? Well a bigger battery will need a heavier alternator!
Besides it is way easier to check belts than to check the condition = of an=20 electric drive....
I don't want to spoil the discussion, but it points into the wrong = way=20 safetywise!
You are after a racer or something else special, sorry I didn't = catch it or=20 signed on too late to get the start.
But as a general means to pump the cooling through a Rotary, = no=20 thanks!
Again, check where, anywhere electric pumps are used for longterm, = non-stop=20 cooling - I don't think Aviation should be the testing ground for a = "first=20 time!"
(Please don't tell me about oceangoing ships, there things are a = little=20 bigger and heavier and there are at least 2 pumps redundant for EVERY = pump in=20 action, AND they do fail quite often, though not because of electrics, = but=20 foreign objects in the pump, cavitation and erosion damage...)
 
Thomas Jakits
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Todd = Bartrim=20
Sent: Saturday, November 06, = 2004 4:27=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = EWP

Whoaa, before anybody gets worked up over my current draw = figures, I'd=20 made a mistake in my report and had sent another post correcting it = the next=20 day. Below is the corrected post.... hmmnn, is there a way of going = back into=20 the archives to correct erroneous data, as this same issue came up = once before=20 based on my incorrect data post.
 

Hi=20 Guy's
        I had a hard time=20 believing the current draw for the pump so I brought home my good = "Fluke"=20 multimeter from work. The one I used last night was a cheap Digital = meter from=20 "Canadian Tire". I seldom use this one, so I'm not familiar with it = but since=20 it is very similar in outward appearance to my "Fluke 87" I assumed = the same=20 functions would apply. They don't.

 OK,OK, enough excuses, now = for the real=20 current draw.

  • continuous current draw - 4.3 = amps=20
  • max inrush current draw at = 100mS - 6.8=20 amps=20
  • max inrush current draw at 250uS - 13 = amps=20
  • continuous current draw at minimum controlled = flow - .2=20 amps
The max inrush current is not really relevant = to our=20 concerns, but there it is for those that care.
This higher current flow is still well within = acceptable=20 limits for my needs, and I expect that while in cruise flight, the = controller=20 will be reducing pump speed and current=20 draw.

I've reposted the=20 flow measurements along with this post with the incorrect current draw = deleted. I hope this clears up any confusion about EWP current = requirements.=20 I 

        I ran the = first test=20 with the Ford evap cores in the system, plumbed in=20 parallel.
  • Max flow 9.3 usg/m  35 = l/m=20
  • 12.07 volt battery supply = voltage=20
    Second test had = no evap=20 cores in the system. Simply recirced water through pump - engine - = header=20 tank - pump.
  • max flow 13.0 usg/m   49 = l/m=20
  • 12.06 volt battery supply = voltage=20
    Third test, I = plumbed in a=20 set of GM (Harrison) evap cores in parallel, into the system. I hung = them=20 just below my mounted Ford cores, using they same pipe sizes in an = effort to=20 have comparable test conditions.
  • max flow 7.7 usg/m   29 = l/m=20
  • 12.4 volts supply voltage (I = hooked a trickle=20 charger to the battery)=20
    In each test = configuration=20 test results are with heater valve closed. Heater core added .5 = usg/m in=20 each case.
 
    In all of = the above=20 tests the electronic pump controller was bypassed to give full = battery=20 voltage to the pump. With the pump controller in use, as the water = was=20 cold well water, controller had pump at minimum flow which was = measured=20 at .6 usg/m - 2.2 l/m.
 
I've just been lurking since returning from school = as I've got=20 allot to catch up on around here, so am trying not to get distracted = with=20 the list, however I needed to jump in on this one. I need to head = out to the=20 airport today to install my new radio and hopefully get out for a = flight, as=20 they are calling for 5" of snow = tonight.
 
Todd Bartrim
 
RV9Endurance
13B Turbo Rotary
C-FSTB
http://www3.telus.= net/haywire/RV-9/C-FSTB.htm
 
          &nbs= p; =20 "The world will always have a place for those that bring hard work = and=20 determination to the things they=20 = do."
 
------=_NextPart_000_0045_01C4C456.2F4BB9E0--