Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #12344
From: Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] nylon EWP's
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:45:53 -0700
To: 'Rotary motors in aircraft' <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
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.

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster