Return-Path: Received: from [216.52.245.18] (HELO ispwestemail1.aceweb.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.5) with ESMTP id 2644316 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 21:55:50 -0400 Received: from 7n7z201 (unverified [209.206.0.170]) by ispwestemail1.aceweb.net (Vircom SMTPRS 2.1.268) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 20 Oct 2003 18:49:47 -0700 Message-ID: <0b0201c39776$2b5c24e0$252dbbd0@7n7z201> From: "William" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP check valves Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 20:53:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Actually, with a long run, the larger diameter hose is called for to keep the pressure loss down going to and from the remote radiator. Is it 7 ft *each way* (14 ft total)? Bill Schertz > > Where did the 2" hose requirement come from? Wasn't Tracy running with 5/8" hose to his radiators? Can we get a survey of working installations to see what size hose is sufficient? > > This is a significant issue for me. I'm considering a remotely located radiator. Running 2" hose for 7ft or so is out of the question. > >