Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 22:45:03 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-2644415@logan.com>
From: "sqpilot@earthlink" <sqpilot@earthlink.net>
References: <list-2642501@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RotaryEng List was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Series vs PARALLEL pumps & flowmeter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


----- Original Message -----
From: "Robinson, Chad" <crobinson@rfgonline.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: RotaryEng List was Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP Series
vs PARALLEL pumps & flowmeter


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.

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.

=)

Regards,
Chad

Hey.....Add me to the list of people happy to be stuck with Ed.  Ed has a
FLYING 13b. He has taken the time to share so many of his experiments,
successes and failures with us. Not everyone takes the time to share results
of their experiments. We all are lucky to have people like Ed DIE Anderson,
Todd EWPBartrim, Turbo Rusty, and so many others who take the time to share
their results to prevent us from making the same mistakes, and get into the
air faster, follwing their already proven success stories. On a side note, I
was thrilled to hear of the success of an EWP on a rotary.  All the
theoretical calculations don't prove or disprove as much as actual testing.
I've heard that scientists stated that the bumble bee is too heavy to fly,
given it's wingspan. Thankfully, no one told the bumble bee.  Thankfully,
Todd decided to see for himself if the bumble bee (EWP) could fly.  I agree
that there are many useful ideas to draw from on the other list. What I like
about this list most, is that the ideas on this list have been implemented
and are either proven or going through trials. Keep up the good work, fellow
rotary enthusiasts.....you are saving me a lot of money just because I don't
have to try experiments already proven to be unsuccessful, and I can copy
experiments that work. We are all fortunate to have you here with us, Ed.
Paul Conner, 13b powered SQ2000
>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html