Return-Path: <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
Received: from imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.68] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5)
  with ESMTP id 2643893 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:01:17 -0400
Received: from TOSHIBAjhr ([209.214.14.126]) by imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net
          (InterMail vM.5.01.05.27 201-253-122-126-127-20021220) with SMTP
          id <20031020190112.CDUN14434.imf20aec.mail.bellsouth.net@TOSHIBAjhr>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:01:12 -0400
From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP series flight data & hail
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 15:01:09 -0400
Message-ID: <NMELKLCBIAJLEHHCHLJBIEADCLAA.sladerj@bellsouth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <list-2643704@logan.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Importance: Normal

> > 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.
I agree. Jim's right for once :)
If I persue the EWP later on I'll be looking for a suitable check valve. If
anyone finds one in the meantime, please let us all know.