Return-Path: Received: from border.rfgonline.com ([65.171.123.242] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2631526 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:25:00 -0400 Received: (qmail 11929 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2003 14:29:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO EXCHANGE.rfgonline.com) (192.168.150.101) by 192.168.150.1 with SMTP; 10 Oct 2003 14:29:09 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP - Success at last? Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:24:55 -0400 Message-ID: <0B27ED95697C4D4CBC82D79E790FE5678B09C6@exchange.rfgonline.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP - Success at last? Thread-Index: AcOPN+QyGkTekfLnShe3y1h//drGngAAg48A From: "Robinson, Chad" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Should it prove feasible, a possible advantage of the EWP that has not = > been mentioned so far is the ability to plumb two in parallel (with=20 > appropriate check valves) for redundancy. Auto makers have no burning = > desire to let you switch pumps and continue driving. Speaking of which, given the fact that these things only weigh two = pounds, is there any real reason this should not be a standard practice? = On a very hot day, if your cooling is not sufficient, you could simply = turn the second pump on for added flow. And since it gives you a much = gentler failure mode I'd be a lot more comfortable with the EWP than the = mechanical in that case. Heck, we have redundancy for everything else - = alternators, ignition systems, fuel pumps, etc. Why have a single water = pump, when water cooling is so critical to this engine? Of course, what would a check valve look like for a 2" radiator hose? Regards, Chad