Return-Path: Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2901667 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:01:46 -0500 Received: from TOSHIBAjhr ([209.214.15.28]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with SMTP id <20031223030145.TRAS1884.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@TOSHIBAjhr> for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:01:45 -0500 From: "John Slade" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] dual EWP plumbing? Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:01:44 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002A_01C3C8D7.2FDECBC0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C3C8D7.2FDECBC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message> Since there are two core outlets, two EWP's, and two inlets to the engine, it's mighty tempting to let each > EWP handle only one core. Hmmm. I dunno, Rusty. My intuition (which may or may not be useful) is that you'd be better designing for normal operation in the event of a pump failure. Sort of follows the Nuckolls philosophy of no one component getting in the way of finishing you're flight in comfort. Of course, the disadvantage, is that if they're plumbed together and you get a leak, you'll loose all you're coolant. I guess it depends on how "operational" you'd be on one core and one pump. > In my usual masochistic way, I offer this idea for your abuse, or is that the other list :-) No that's this list. What a short memory you have! John Slade (accumulating turbo plumbing) ------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C3C8D7.2FDECBC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
> Since there are two core outlets, two = EWP's, and=20 two inlets to the engine, it's mighty tempting to let each  
> EWP=20 handle only one core.   
Hmmm. I dunno, Rusty. My intuition (which may = or may=20 not be useful) is that you'd be better designing for normal operation in = the=20 event of a pump failure. Sort of follows the Nuckolls philosophy of = no one=20 component getting in the way of finishing you're flight in comfort. Of = course,=20 the disadvantage, is that if they're plumbed together and you get a = leak, you'll=20 loose all you're coolant.  I guess it depends on how "operational" = you'd be=20 on one core and one pump.
 
> In=20 my usual masochistic way, I offer this idea for your abuse, or is that = the other=20 list :-) 
No that's this list. What a short memory you=20 have!
 
John Slade (accumulating turbo=20 plumbing)
 
------=_NextPart_000_002A_01C3C8D7.2FDECBC0--