Return-Path: Received: from [216.52.245.18] (HELO ispwestemail2.mdeinc.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 759066 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:06:56 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.52.245.18; envelope-from=wschertz@ispwest.com Received: from 7n7z201 (unverified [67.136.146.22]) by ispwestemail2.mdeinc.com (Vircom SMTPRS 4.0.340.3) with SMTP id for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 08:05:55 -0800 Message-ID: <01c301c51b53$e2001960$16928843@7n7z201> From: "William" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:37:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C51B1D.A6FE1C80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C51B1D.A6FE1C80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageYour comment below implies that an EWP is *more* reliable than a = belt. I don't think that has been shown to be the case yet.=20 Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser # 4045 With an alternator driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an = engine that required no belts. I REALLY like that idea. Did I say I = REALLY like that idea? Paul Conner ------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C51B1D.A6FE1C80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Your comment below implies that an EWP = is *more*=20 reliable than a belt. I don't think that has been shown to be the case = yet.=20
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # = 4045
With = an alternator=20 driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an engine that required = no=20 belts.  I REALLY like that idea.   Did I say I REALLY = like that=20 idea?  Paul = Conner

------=_NextPart_000_00A7_01C51B1D.A6FE1C80--