|
|
PL may have been considerably off; but at .1hp with the EWP you will be
getting only a fraction of the flow of the belt driven pump; even if it
were
100% efficient.
But, Al, that's the whole point. The stock pump is designed to provide adequate cooling in stop-and-go traffic; it wastes a lot of energy at cruise RPM. If the losses due to conversion are 25%, that still a *net* 7.4 HP gain - nothing to sneeze at. ---------------
Dale;
Stop and go driving has less of a cooling load than does continuous 75%
power. More likely the pump has been designed to come close to handling the
cooling for WOT operation at any rpm.
One of my concerns in the overall design of the cooling system was whether
or not the pump would provide adequate flow rate for a near optimum cooling
system design. It turned out that it "just" does. Yes, there will be some
excess flow at cruise because we have to design for full power climb, and
I'd estimate that excess about a hp; probably about equal to the power
conversion losses.
There isn't time or reason to go over all the factors again, I guess it is
all in the archives. My conclusion is that there probably are reasons for
going to EWP, but in an airplane application; performance improvement isn't
one of them. The lower flow rates can be offset by larger radiator volume
(and weight), but we don't really know whether the higher delta T is a good
thing for the engine. You're free to draw a different conclusion.
Al
|
|