Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.101] (HELO ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 2912788 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:03:29 -0500 Received: from o7y6b5 (clt78-020.carolina.rr.com [24.93.78.20]) by ms-smtp-02-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i0133KAc006052 for ; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 22:03:27 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001701c3d012$377af6a0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] EWP check valve test, more plumbing options Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 21:51:54 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3CFE8.4E403960" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3CFE8.4E403960 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 9:20 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] EWP check valve test, more plumbing options Greetings, I promise this will be the last time I start an EWP topic this year = (boo, hiss, sorry) :-) First, at the suggestion of Todd, I did a crude flow test of the one = way valves that I recently received. Unfortunately, the news is not = good. In my extremely crude test, the pump flowed about 20 gpm with no = valve. With the valve, it was about 6 gpm. Aside from the overall = restriction, the ball in the valve started vibrating, and caused the = flow be reduced even further. All in all, a pretty poor showing. Now that the valves are out of the picture, I'm looking at plumbing = options again. Attached is a drawing of the parallel arrangement, = without the check valves. If one pump was off, it would be possible to = get reverse flow through it, but the water would have to go through the = Meziere fitting, hose, pump, hose, one of the cores, and more hose to = get back in the loop. This is clearly a better situation (from a = standpoint of reverse flow) than having the two pumps joined with a Tee = at their inlets, and outlets. Would anyone care to guess if this would = positively flow water through the engine when one pump was off? =20 Next question, is anyone running their cores in series (I think I = heard Tracy groan), or is everyone running parallel? =20 Happy New Year! Rusty (Leon's got us beat) =20 Rusty, most of the folks I know are running their cores in series. = Tracy is the only one that I am sure of that actually has his working in = parallel. Mine were in series from the start as it simplified my = plumbing. Ed Anderson ------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3CFE8.4E403960 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
 
 From: Russell Duffy
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, = 2003 9:20=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] EWP check = valve=20 test, more plumbing options

Greetings,
 
I promise = this will be=20 the last time I start an EWP topic this year (boo, hiss, sorry)=20 :-)
 
First, at the = suggestion=20 of Todd, I did a crude flow test of the one way valves that I recently = received.  Unfortunately, the news is not good.  In my = extremely=20 crude test, the pump flowed about 20 gpm with no valve.  With the = valve,=20 it was about 6 gpm.  Aside from the overall restriction, the ball = in the=20 valve started vibrating, and caused the flow be reduced even = further. =20 All in all, a pretty poor showing.
 
Now that the = valves are=20 out of the picture, I'm looking at plumbing options again.  = Attached is a=20 drawing of the parallel arrangement, without the check valves.  = If one=20 pump was off, it would be possible to get reverse flow through it, but = the=20 water would have to go through the Meziere fitting, hose,=20 pump, hose, one of the cores, and more hose to get = back in=20 the loop.  This is clearly a better situation (from a = standpoint of=20 reverse flow) than having the two pumps joined with = a Tee at=20 their inlets, and outlets.  Would anyone care to guess if = this would=20 positively flow water through the engine when one pump was=20 off?  
 
Next = question, is anyone=20 running their cores in series (I think I heard Tracy groan), or is = everyone=20 running parallel? 
 
Happy New=20 Year!
Rusty (Leon's = got us=20 beat)

 
 
Rusty, most of the folks I know are = running their=20 cores in series.  Tracy is the only one that I am sure of that = actually=20 has his working in parallel.  Mine were in series from the start = as it=20 simplified my plumbing.
 
Ed = Anderson
------=_NextPart_000_0014_01C3CFE8.4E403960--