Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.67; envelope-from=jerryhey@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=simple;
  s=test1; d=earthlink.net;
  h=Date:Subject:Content-Type:Mime-Version:From:To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:X-Mailer;
  b=qrXEZm8GLEFEtbTHABW2k9ASxu0dvuKAlJbk7gtYdAvCAYCKf0ukq0Etftd+WEU5;
Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:56:07 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Bill Schertz's cooling analysis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jerry Hey <jerryhey@earthlink.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <list-770991@logan.com>
Message-Id: <B4176D21-8D86-11D9-BEA5-0003931B0C7A@earthlink.net>

Bob,  I like the EWPs if they will work.  To build a new motor mount 
with a lowered thrust line using the S-beam would be a possibility if 
it did not cause a chain reaction of other changes.     Jerry


On Friday, March 4, 2005, at 09:06  PM, Bob White wrote:

>
> If I find that I will actually get 20 GPM with the WP136, I will figure
> out how to mount them (right now they're just hanging on the hoses) and
> redo all the hoses.  The WP336 is the higher capacity pump and is rated
> at 55 GPM, so the impeller diameter is 2.75 X.  It should also create
> 7.5 X the maximum head pressure which would bring it from 6 psi to 45
> psi. If I had understood how these pumps work better to start, I would
> have picked the 336.  I just figured 20+20=40 vs 55 was only a little
> worse and I would get redundancy.
>
> If I were to decide not to use an EWP, I have the Paul Lamar remote
> pump casting.  The big downside there is building a solid bracket so
> that the belts clear all the protuberances on the front cover.  With
> just the alternator on the side and the Racing Beat underdrive pulley
> set, the bracket and clearance problem worked out real nice.
>
> BTW, someone asked why are we looking at EWP's.  My answer is I have
> almost no room between the top of the engine and the cowling,
> especially at the back (front cover).  Even cut down, the stock pump
> still sticks up some and I just don't have the room.  Jerry Hey built
> my engine mount, and I probably should have had him lower my thrust
> line a couple of inches. I didn't want to give up the prop clearance
> and didn't forsee this problem.  In addition, the stock pump is at the
> top of the engine so quits working if you loose a small amount of
> coolant.  That was the reason I got the remote casting.  The EWP will
> solve these problems and be easier to mount.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 19:00:13 -0600
> "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> So are you still deciding whether to use the WP136 pumps, vs maybe the
>> bigger one (can't remember the number)?  I received the WP136 that I 
>> ordered
>> today.  It's a beefy pump for sure.  It weighs 5 lb 2oz, where the 
>> Davies
>> Craig (DC from now on) weighs 1 lb 11 oz.  Since I wasted all 
>> afternoon
>> waiting for DHL to decide to reschedule my FJO O2 sensor for Monday
>> (grrrrrrr), I didn't get to see how it would fit on the RV-3.  I 
>> think I
>> could get two of them on there, easier than two DC pumps, but of 
>> course I
>> don't plan any pump change until after it's flying again.
>>
>> Rusty (only need to add gas and oil, then turn key)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (real soon)
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>