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 2643710 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:19:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 12679 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2003 16:23:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO EXCHANGE.rfgonline.com) (192.168.150.101) by 192.168.150.1 with SMTP; 20 Oct 2003 16:23:03 -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] Re: EWP series flight data & hail Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:16:02 -0400 Message-ID: <0B27ED95697C4D4CBC82D79E790FE5678B0A3C@exchange.rfgonline.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP series flight data & hail Thread-Index: AcOXI+3j+IC5yuVBTVuNx9iCyeD+1wAAO4CA From: "Robinson, Chad" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Is it possible we were a little premature in abandoning the notion of = a > simple check valve to prevent back flow on parallel connected pumps? = It > would solve ALL the problems at the cost of reliability of the check = valve. Jim, I agree. I was personally more interested in a series configuration = because it appeared to simplify the plumbing, placement, and = installation, and because the makers seemed to imply that flow would be = unimpeded by the second pump. Thanks to Russell, we know that's not the = case, so it's time to reinvestigate the parallel configuration. I'm still not a huge fan of making my own, although all you folks with = the machine tools, power to you! For those not so inclined, you can = check McMaster-Carr - they're usually a good source for such things. = It's probably where I'll go. They cost money, but they're very heavily = tested and quite reliable - I'm more of an electronics nut than a = machinist. Regards, Chad