Return-Path: Received: from imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.69] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 759284 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:10:56 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.69; envelope-from=atlasyts@bellsouth.net Received: from [65.11.37.54] by imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050225181012.SMHX2296.imf21aec.mail.bellsouth.net@[65.11.37.54]> for ; Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:10:12 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/10.0.0.1309 Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:11:36 -0500 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator From: Bulent Aliev To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3192181898_6650448" > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3192181898_6650448 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Jim, I have a business selling DC pumps and will not dare replace my engine driven pump with an DC electric. NO WAY! Todd is getting away with it in the frozen North, but I doubt it it will make it here. I have by my desk a 15 GPM 12V pump with 1=B2 ports. This thing is bigger (about twice) and heavier than standard Lycoming starter. If the weight was not an issue, this is the pump I would consider as a minimum. Also I don=B9t like converting the engine=B9s energy into electric and than converting again into kinetic? Sorry to say on this issue I=B9m with PL. Buly On 2/25/05 12:08 PM, "Jim Sower" wrote: > IIRC EWP is a lot more efficient than EDWP (absorbs much less power). Du= al > EWPs make the system a couple of orders of magnitude more reliable than s= ingle > EWP and arguably single EDWP. >=20 > A bullet proof electrical system makes EWP very attractive to me ... Jim = S. >=20 > William wrote: >> Message=20 >> Your 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. >> Bill Schertz >> KIS Cruiser # 4045 >>> With an alternator driven by the e-shaft and an EWP, I could have an en= gine >>> that required no belts. I REALLY like that idea. Did I say I REALLY = like >>> that idea? Paul Conner >>>=20 --B_3192181898_6650448 Content-type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Re: [FlyRotary] Re: E-shaft permanent magnet alternator Jim, I have a business selling DC pumps and will not d= are replace my engine driven pump with an DC electric. NO WAY!
Todd is getting away with it in the frozen North, but I doubt it it will ma= ke it here. I have by my desk a 15 GPM 12V pump with 1” ports. This th= ing is bigger (about twice) and heavier than standard Lycoming starter. If t= he weight was not an issue, this is the pump I would consider as a minimum. = Also I don’t like converting the engine’s energy into electric a= nd than converting again into kinetic? Sorry to say on this issue I’m = with PL.
Buly

On 2/25/05 12:08 PM, "Jim Sower" <canarder@frontiernet.net>= wrote:

IIRC EWP is a lot more efficient= than EDWP (absorbs much less power).  Dual EWPs make the system a = couple of orders of magnitude more reliable than single EWP and arguably sin= gle EDWP.

A bullet proof electrical system makes EWP very attractive to me ...= Jim S.

William wrote:
Message
Your comment below implies that an EWP is *more* reliable th= an a belt. I don't think that has been shown to be the case yet.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
With an alter= nator 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 lik= e that idea?  Paul Conner

--B_3192181898_6650448--