Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.30; envelope-from=rogersda@cox.net
From: Dale Rogers <rogersda@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>,"Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 23:16:53 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20041110041655.ZVVC14545.fed1rmmtao09.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>

Thomas,

   Are you an actual builder?  Or do you just come here to 
stir the mud?

   I ask because you are employing tactics that I usually 
see reserved for political discussions - to wit, mis- and 
re- direction when challenged.

   You said:

> 
> From: "rijakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
> Date: 2004/11/08 Mon PM 07:11:35 EST
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP
> ...
>   Somewhere in another post on this newsletter, same thread, someone said that I am wrong concerning the need for a bigger battery wit a EWP.
>   Well you don't need a bigger battery unless you would like to keep your sparetime to engine shutdown the same as without the EWP. You also will need a bigger alternator...about 4 to 7 amps bigger, according to the numbers showing up on the list :) 
> 

   However, what you had actually written was:

From: 	"rijakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net> 
Subject: 	Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP 
Date: 	Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:13:11 -0500

>> ...
>> Well a bigger battery will need a heavier alternator!

to which I responded.

> Wrong! It isn't the bigger battery that requires a
larger alternator; it is the total system current
requirements. 

   I stand by my words.  

Dale R.
COZY MkIV #1254
Ch's 4, 5 and 23 in progress.