Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 763196 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:15:19 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Feb 2005 14:14:35 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from [172.18.179.151] (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j1SJEXhF009023 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:14:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <42236D98.8070300@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:14:32 -0500 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [FlyRotary]EWP slander was Belt rumnations; soliciting Opinions of racers please.... References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Russell Duffy wrote: > My guess is that the EWP will ONLY work if the water flow path is > cleaned up sufficiently to allow it to work. I think Rusty's experiment > with using both has a high likelyhood of failure, because he will be > > > Hi Ernest, > > Why are you using the word "failure" when speaking of my EWP > installation? It's working flawlessly. > > BTW, I have no thermostat, > > I'm sorry, Rusty. Consider it a poor choice of words. I did not mean to slander your arrangement in the slightest. It's just that you've not tested the EWP working by itself in a sustained climb. We can't conclude that it absolutely works, until it has been shown to work. You can't even trust a sustained, full-power run-up, because you won't have the same airflow as you would in a climb, which works against the EWP in the same way that additional restrictions do. My only contention is that it MAY not be up to the task in your current configuration, but it SHOULD work just fine if you open up the system to allow the water to flow better. May, should, might...coward words one and all, I admit. I'm working on a lot of extrapolations and suppositions, but I know one thing for sure. The EWP will NOT work if it has to push against 30 pounds of head pressure. You can pick that right off of Davie-Craig's own chart. You can test the head the pump is seeing fairly easy. 1) get two PVC T section with a 3/8" nipple coming off and splice one on each side of the pump. 2) run a 50' piece of clear tube off of each T up the side of your hangar. 3) warm the engine up, and crank up that EWP (attach a charger to the battery to get operating voltages) 4) measure the difference in the water column height. With that, you will know how much water the pump should be flowing. Over 20GPM and you're golden.