X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.2) with ESMTP id 2874203 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:26:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20080427152617.ZDJT20708.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@edward2> for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:26:17 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c8a87b$22bfd460$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:26:59 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8A859.9B61E920" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8A859.9B61E920 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Michael, Good to hear from you again. Take some photos and post them to the list = of your project when you get a chance. Well, I must admit I'm a bit biased toward the standard mechanical pump. = However, I am also flying with my 13B rotated 90 Degs (Plugs Up) to = move certain high profile items below the cowl line (Initially, I really = it was because I hated doing cowl fiberglass work - now, I just don't = like it {:>)). So I believe there are times and conditions that perhaps justify = departing from the norm. I am certainly not against electric pumps (I = mean, I use three electric pumps for my fuel system - certainly a = critical system). I think there may be conditions and constraints were = an electric water pump is the answer. But, as I mentioned, early on I was faced with objects (alternators, = water pump inlets, distributor, etc, sticking above my cowl line. By = rotating the engine 90 deg that solved that problem, made the exhaust = outlet easier and provide much more room on the side for experimenting = with induction systems. Also it position my injectors so they were no = longer "above" the hot exhaust manifold - so fuel leaks were not as = likely to hit it. Despite some few individuals who mandated that the = engine just would not operate in that orientation, its worked fine for = over 400 hours and 10 years. However, they are three major downsides (none of a technical nature) = of the "Plugs Up" approach, which why I would not normally recommend it. = =20 1. I would no longer have a unique "Plugs Up" installation {:>) 2. You will need to build a oil sump to accommodate the new orientation = of the oil system - certainly not difficult, but something you would = have to do. 3. Most of the products produced by vendors for the flying rotary are = made for the automobile orientation of the engine .=20 I had to modify the motor mounts of the RWS gear box to fit it. Again = not a major problem but one that would have to be addressed. People have addressed the high profile items in other ways, such as = moving the alternator mounting to a different location, machining down = and welding on a adapter water pump inlet. using the Crank Angle Sensor = (very much lower than the distributor) - but, which then requires an = ignition computer. (Might as well get the EC2 from RWS and have both = your ignition and injector computer). So as you know, its all doable - its been done before by various folks = in different ways, some may pop up and offer their solutions. Best Regards Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Michael Silvius=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 11:56 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Electric Water pumps - Interesting Ed: I have been thinking about a similar set up as those electric water = pumps but more on order of a remote mechanical water pump in order to = get rid of the original heavy cast iron cartridge and the tall housing. = I have been unable to locate a water pump that would be like those = electric stand alone units but minus the electric motor. My thought = would be mounting it as one perhaps would mount an alternator. In my = case I seem to have a god bit of room on the lower back end of the = engine. An other thought on installation was a direct drive with a = coupling of the back pulley. My natural apprehension is messing with a = system that we know works. So I may wind up with a bump or two on my = cowl to accommodate it as well as the distributor. Michael in Maine Falconar F-12 progressing at glacial pace. ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:31 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Electric Water pumps - Interesting I was just thumbing through a recent catalog from Summit Racing and = came across a couple of pages on electric water pumps. There has always = been a degree of interest (and some debate {:>)) regarding the use of = electric water pumps in aircraft. It was interesting to read some of = the descriptions, but basically the current consumed ranged from 4 - 9 = amps and the quoted flow rate (presumably without back pressure) was = from 16-35 gpm. So if you take 9 amps at say 14 volts =3D 126 watts =3D 0.167 HP to = get that flow. However, some of them indicate you can save 15 - 20 = engine HP at HIGH rpm. So why the difference? Apparently (my best guess) is that they are advertising their = product to best advantage (surprise?). I would suspect that the flow = rates shown are without back pressure and that when attached to a real = engine coolant system that : 1. The flow rates would decrease=20 2. The current requirements would increase.=20 However, not to the point the electric pump would be required to = make 10HP or more to provide the required flow. I suspect there are = considerable losses (such as pump cavitation and pressure drops through = the cooling galleys)with mechanical pumps at high pump rpm as driven by = a high revving engine which accounts for the high power requirements. = Whereas the electric driven pumps may operate at lower and more = efficient rpm without the majority of those losses. That said, the pumps cost range from around $200 - $400 and while no = weights were given, basic on the photographs showing the heavy electric = motors and additional plumbing would not appear to offer any = significant weight savings over the proven, reliable mechanical pumps = most of us are using.=20 So while certainly interesting and perhaps of value in some = aircraft installations(how would you like to gain an additional 10 HP on = takeoff?), I remain confident in my old 86 13B water pump housing and = cartridge which is still going strong after 10 years. I have moved it = from my first 86 N/A engine to my current 91 turbo block, so it has = performed for over 10 years in two different engines without any = problem. Interestingly, of the 11 electrical water pumps advertised, only = one was specified for drag race use only - and it had the lowest current = drain - 3.5 amps. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8A859.9B61E920 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Michael,
 
Good to hear from you again.  Take = some=20 photos and post them to the list of your project when you get a=20 chance.
 
Well, I must admit I'm a bit biased = toward the=20 standard mechanical pump.  However, I am also flying with my 13B = rotated 90=20 Degs (Plugs Up) to move certain high profile items below the cowl line=20 (Initially, I really it was because I hated = doing cowl fiberglass=20 work - now, I just don't like it {:>)).
 
So  I believe there are times and = conditions=20 that perhaps justify departing from the norm. I am certainly not = against=20 electric pumps (I mean, I use three electric pumps for my fuel system -=20 certainly a critical system).  I think there may be = conditions and=20 constraints were an electric water pump is the answer.
 
But, as I mentioned, early on I was = faced with=20 objects (alternators, water pump inlets, distributor, etc, sticking = above my=20 cowl line.  By rotating the engine 90 deg that solved that problem, = made=20 the exhaust outlet easier and provide much more room on the side for=20 experimenting with induction systems.  Also it position my = injectors so=20 they were no longer "above" the hot exhaust manifold - so fuel leaks = were not as=20 likely to hit it.  Despite some few individuals who mandated = that the=20 engine just would not operate in that orientation, its worked fine for = over 400=20 hours and 10 years.
 
  However, they are three = major=20 downsides (none of a technical nature) of the "Plugs Up" approach, which = why I=20 would not normally recommend it. 
 
1.  I would no longer have a = unique "Plugs=20 Up" installation {:>)
 
2.  You will need to build a oil = sump to=20 accommodate the new orientation of the oil system - certainly not = difficult, but=20 something you would have to do.
 
3.  Most of the products produced = by vendors=20 for the flying rotary are made for the automobile orientation of the = engine=20 . 
 
 I had to modify the motor mounts = of the RWS=20 gear box to fit it.  Again not a major problem but one that would = have to=20 be addressed.
 
People have addressed the high profile = items in=20 other ways, such as moving the alternator mounting to a different = location,=20 machining down and welding on a adapter water pump inlet.  using = the Crank=20 Angle Sensor (very much lower than the distributor) - but, which then = requires=20 an ignition computer.  (Might as well get the EC2 from RWS and have = both=20 your ignition and injector computer).
 
So as you know, its all doable - its = been done=20 before by various folks in different ways, some may pop up and offer = their=20 solutions.
 
Best Regards
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Michael = Silvius=20
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 = 11:56=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Electric Water=20 pumps - Interesting

Ed:
 
I have been thinking about a similar = set up as=20 those electric water pumps but more on order of a remote = mechanical water=20 pump in order to get rid of the original heavy cast iron cartridge and = the=20 tall housing. I have been unable to locate a water pump that would be = like=20 those electric stand alone units but minus the electric motor. My = thought=20 would be mounting it as one perhaps would mount an alternator. In my = case I=20 seem to have a god bit of room on the lower back end of the engine. An = other=20 thought on installation was a direct drive with a coupling of the back = pulley.=20 My natural apprehension is messing with a system that we know works. = So I may=20 wind up with a bump or two on my cowl to accommodate it as well as the = distributor.
 
Michael in Maine
Falconar F-12 progressing at glacial=20 pace.
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 = 9:31=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Electric = Water=20 pumps - Interesting

I was just thumbing through a = recent catalog=20 from Summit Racing and came across a couple of pages on electric = water=20 pumps.  There has always been a degree of interest (and = some=20 debate {:>)) regarding the use of electric water pumps in = aircraft. =20  It was interesting to read some of the descriptions, but = basically the=20 current consumed ranged from 4 - 9 amps and the quoted flow = rate=20 (presumably without back pressure) was from 16-35 gpm.
 
So if you take 9 amps at say 14 = volts =3D 126=20 watts =3D 0.167 HP to get that flow.  However, some of them = indicate you=20 can save 15 - 20 engine HP at HIGH rpm.  So why the=20 difference?
 
  Apparently (my best guess) = is that=20 they are advertising their product to best advantage = (surprise?).  I=20 would suspect that the flow rates shown are without back pressure = and that=20 when attached to a real engine coolant system = that :
 
1.  The flow rates would = decrease=20
2.  The current requirements = would=20 increase. 
 
 However, not to the point the = electric=20 pump would be required to make 10HP or more to provide the required=20 flow.  I suspect there are considerable losses (such as pump = cavitation=20 and pressure drops through the cooling galleys)with mechanical pumps =  at high pump rpm as driven by a high revving engine which = accounts for=20 the high power requirements.  Whereas the electric driven pumps = may=20 operate at lower and more efficient rpm without the majority of = those=20 losses.
 
That said, the pumps cost range = from around=20 $200 - $400 and while no weights were given, basic on the=20 photographs showing the heavy electric motors and additional = plumbing=20  would not appear to offer any significant weight savings over = the=20 proven, reliable mechanical pumps most of us are = using. 
 
 So while certainly = interesting and=20 perhaps of value in some aircraft installations(how would you like = to gain=20 an additional 10 HP on takeoff?), I remain confident in my old 86 = 13B water=20 pump housing and cartridge which is still going strong after 10 = years. =20 I have moved it from my first 86 N/A engine to my current 91 turbo = block, so=20 it has performed for over 10 years in two different engines without = any=20 problem.
 
Interestingly, of  the =  11=20 electrical water pumps advertised, only one was specified for drag = race use=20 only - and it had the lowest current drain - 3.5 amps.
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.comhttp://www.andersonee.com
http:/= /members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda= /index.html
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C8A859.9B61E920--