Message-ID: <085001c3c90e$797f0b00$6401a8c0@Davidscmptr>
Reply-To: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
From: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-2901647@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: dual EWP plumbing?
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 22:37:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Rplying to John Slade's reply:

I like your plan.  If 1 pump fails after achieving cruise altitude (done
with climbing), then you will be well within the "'Nuckols" envelope of "it
isn't critical - you can complete your flight" (or do precautionary landing
at a convenient place, as we were taught in the AF).

I'm seriously considering 1 or 2 esp's, like you.

David Carter

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: dual EWP plumbing?


> 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)
>