Message

Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2902408 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:12:40 -0500 Received: from rad ([68.212.7.74]) by imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <20031223151239.CSCX8082.imf24aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Tue, 23 Dec 2003 10:12:39 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: dual EWP plumbing? Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 09:12:34 -0600 Message-ID: <034801c3c967$35dff4f0$6001a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0349_01C3C934.EB4584F0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 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_0349_01C3C934.EB4584F0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =20 =20 I understand what you're saying. I keep floundering back and forth = between the two methods. Realistically, I don't expect to have a pump failure, which makes me reluctant to use the second EWP as a pure standby if I = can find some operational benefit to using it routinely. =20 =20 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.=20 =20 Unfortunately, if I get a leak anywhere, I'll loose all the coolant, = even if only one pump is running. If I get lucky, and the leak is in the = circuit that's not running, it would probably buy me some time, but I'm sure not counting on that as an advantage. =20 Rusty (I miss Todd ) ------=_NextPart_000_0349_01C3C934.EB4584F0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

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.

I understand = what you're=20 saying. I keep floundering back and forth between the two = methods. =20 Realistically, I don't expect to have a pump failure, which makes me = reluctant=20 to use the second EWP as a pure standby if I can find some = operational=20 benefit to using it routinely.

Of course, the disadvantage, is that if = they're plumbed=20 together and you get a leak, you'll loose all you're coolant. I = guess it=20 depends on how "operational" you'd be on one core and one pump.

Unfortunately, if I get=20 a leak anywhere, I'll loose all the coolant, even if only one pump is=20 running. If I get lucky, and the leak is in the circuit that's not = running, it would probably buy me some time, but I'm sure not = counting=20 on that as an advantage.

Rusty (I = miss Todd=20 <g>)

------=_NextPart_000_0349_01C3C934.EB4584F0--