Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao11.cox.net ([68.230.241.28] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.5) with ESMTP id 480566 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:46:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.28; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.107.116.221]) by fed1rmmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20041020184551.MMJ17415.fed1rmmtao11.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 14:45:51 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] nylon EWP's Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:45:53 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c4b6d5$07438010$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4B69A.5AE4A810" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4B69A.5AE4A810 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 Subject: [FlyRotary] nylon EWP's =20 I'd like to hear some more comments about nylon vs. AL EWP's. should I = be satisfied with "well, Leon uses them" and ask no more? the nylon pumps = seem light enough, 2 lbs., that they could be supported simply by their = rubber hoses, which should make a good vibration damper. (I don't really know = who Leon is, although I get the impression his word rates right up there = with Tracy's) the nylon ones only push 20 gpm, whereas the AL claim 37 gpm. = I have no idea what my 20B will require. I would be using 2 in series. =20 Two in series may not give much more flow than one; depending on the = back pressure vs the pressure at which those flows are based. If those pumps = are rated flow at 0 pressure, it is likely that even the AL one is marginal. =20 I've done the math on the 20B. The flow requirements depends on the = cooling system design (obviously); but if you were to design for a sort of = optimum system for an aircraft, you'd like to have 20 - 30 F temp drop around = the loop when you are running about 85% power, say, 220 HP. So for a 50/50 EG/water mix, and 25F delta T; that says 39.5 gpm. For pure water the number is 28.5 gpm =20 The only real data I have on my pump is from the dyno runs. That showed = 43 gpm at 5000; 48 at 6000. That is without a thermostat, and on a large capacity system with presumably relatively low back pressure. 25-30% = less with a thermostat. Unfortunately, I don't know what it is on the = airplane. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4B69A.5AE4A810 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

 

 

Subject: [FlyRotary] nylon EWP's

 

I'd like to hear = some more comments about nylon vs. AL EWP's.  should I be satisfied with = "well, Leon uses them" and ask no more?  the nylon pumps seem light = enough, 2 lbs., that they could be supported simply by their rubber = hoses, which should make a good vibration damper. (I don't really know who = Leon is, although I get the impression his word rates right up there with = Tracy's) the nylon ones only push 20 gpm, whereas the AL claim 37 gpm.  I have no idea what my 20B will require.  I = would be using 2 in series.

=

 

Two in series may not give much = more flow than one; depending on the back pressure vs the pressure at which = those flows are based. If those pumps are rated flow at 0 pressure, it is = likely that even the AL one is marginal.

 

I’ve done the math on the = 20B.  The flow requirements depends on the cooling system design (obviously); but = if you were to design for a sort of optimum system for an aircraft, you’d = like to have 20 – 30 F temp drop around the loop when you are running = about 85% power, say, 220 HP.  So for a 50/50 EG/water mix, and 25F delta = T; that says 39.5 gpm.  For pure water the number is 28.5 = gpm

 

The only real data I have on my = pump is from the dyno runs.  That showed 43 gpm at 5000; 48 at 6000.  = That is without a thermostat, and on a large capacity system with presumably = relatively low back pressure.  25-30% less with a thermostat.  = Unfortunately, I don’t know what it is on the airplane.

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4B69A.5AE4A810--