Return-Path: Received: from border.rfgonline.com ([65.171.123.242] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP-TLS id 2642509 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:57:15 -0400 Received: (qmail 9268 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2003 14:03:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO EXCHANGE.rfgonline.com) (192.168.150.101) by 192.168.150.1 with SMTP; 19 Oct 2003 14:03:57 -0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] RotaryEng List was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Series vs PARALLEL pumps & flowmeter Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 09:57:11 -0400 Message-ID: <0B27ED95697C4D4CBC82D79E790FE567086F9E@exchange.rfgonline.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] RotaryEng List was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Series vs PARALLEL pumps & flowmeter Thread-Index: AcOV8rxVKMLhGNNGS5qubTSJKjiZ0wAVTfMw From: "Robinson, Chad" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Ed Anderson wrote: > Paul Lamar appears to have access to the FlyRotary List. I just got a = couple > of blistering e mails from him. In that somebody provided him a copy = of an > e mail exchange from this list. =20 Let me add my voice to the chorus of those happy to have you here, Ed. Personally, I'm a member of both lists, and I take everything EITHER = side says with a grain of salt. Paul does often have a one-sided view of = things, but he is still full of useful information, and they're = currently debating a muffler design that looks very interesting to me. = On the other hand, if the EWP works, it works, and I'll be happy enough = with that. Cooling the rotary has turned out to be as much art as = science anyway, since nobody has the perfect answer yet. For what it's worth, my view is that Paul is very much a theoretician - = he likes to prove his cases before he starts experimenting. The EWP is = more "bucket chemistry" - toss some stuff into a bucket, and see what = happens. Look, we didn't even have accurate data on impeller flow = obstruction. In response to my e-mail the makers said the flow should be = almost unobstructed, but (was it you, Russell? I forgot already!) = somebody already showed that this is NOT the case, so we're back to = talking about check valves and parallel setups. There's enough that's unproven here that I'm acknowledging that I'll be = taking a bit of both styles as I put this together. Then I'll test the = hell out of it. And no battles. =3D) Regards, Chad