Return-Path: Received: from relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net ([66.133.131.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2632294 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:34:28 -0400 Received: (qmail 29575 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2003 03:34:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO frontiernet.net) ([170.215.97.8]) (envelope-sender ) by relay04.roc.ny.frontiernet.net (FrontierMTA 2.3.6) with SMTP for ; 11 Oct 2003 03:34:27 -0000 Message-ID: <3F876C69.EDCEBAA6@frontiernet.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 22:35:21 -0400 From: Jim Sower X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP - Success at last? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <... The water flow will want to follow the path of least resistance, and I'm sure there will be leakage through the second pump back to the first's inlet - it has to be less resistance than the radiator(s) and engine block ...> Seems to me that if there is little enough resistance that the water back-flows through the dead pump, then they could be plumbed in series. If there is too much resistance to plumb them parallel, then back-flow shouldn't be a major problem. Of course if a cheap, simple, reliable check valve should appear ... Just a theory ... Jim S. "Robinson, Chad" wrote: