|
|
From: "Mike Wills" <willsm@spawar.navy.mil>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 5:58 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Testing
> Leon,
>
> Well in past discussions on the topic I have certainly expressed doubts
> but I dont think I ever said I KNOW it CANT work. And I probably did say
> that in my opinion it wont be definitively proven until one flies. I'll
> stick to that. But your dyno testing will certainly add another data point
> and short of an actual flight test I guess its the best that can be done.
> It's a shame none of the guys currently flying with known cooling system
> configurations can be talked into doing some comparison testing of an EWP.
>
> There was some testing done by someone (cant remember who) recently that
> proved the math of certain rocket scientists was out to lunch. Somebody
did
> some bench testing and measured flow rates for an EWP and those rates were
> real close to published flow rates for the stock Mazda pump without the
> astronomical current draw that had been previously claimed by some.
>
> So I remain curious to see how this works out. I probably wouldnt swap
my
> stock Mazda pump at this point in time because I know it will work. One
> less variable in the early testing phase. But an EWP may be worth testing
> at some future point after my basic installation is flying and debugged if
> you and others are successful.
>
> Mike Wills
>
> At 01:33 PM 3/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> >On 5 Mar 2003, at 11:00, Mike Wills wrote:
> >Hi Mike,
> >
> >However, seeing that the naysayers already KNOW they DON'T
> >and CAN'T work, why on earth would they be interested in
> >practical tests anyway? They KNOW they don't work!! I mean,
> >all you have to do is "run the numbers"!! (}:>) The consensus of
> >several exponents of Theoretical Intergalactic Rocket Science have
> >already PROVEN that they can't work!! (}:>)
> >
> >Further, someone also said in a post (might possibly have been
> >you Mike??) that they wouldn't believe any of this anyway until they
> >saw it actually work in a flying aeroplane, no matter how MUCH
> >data was collected in a car or on a dyno. So be it. Those of that
> >opinion will just have to wait until one is actually flying.
> >
> >Cheers Mike,
> >
> >Leon
> >Best Wishes & Kindest Regards,
----------------------------
As you know, I did some testing of the mechanically driven pump mounted to an engine (so the pump is pumping through the engine). I measured the flow rate and pressure at the outlet of the pump at various rpm and flow rates.
Since then, one of the list members sent me some data on the Meziere 55-GPM water pump. The data available was:
Max Flow = 55 GPM
Max pressure at no flow 10 psi.
Since pressure drop with flow through pipes, tubes, and pumps is proportional to the square of the velocity, I took those two points and put them on my chart of measured flow vs. pressure that i reported some time ago.
My interpretation of the data is that the flow (through the engine) will be less than with the mechanically driven pump if the mechanical pump is being turned more than ~4000 rpm. Bear in mind that the Mazda pump curves are AFTER going through the engine, and the EWP pump curves are with NO pressure drop through the engine.
I hope this information is useful to the group.
|
|