Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.166; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <424C7DFA.9000900@frontiernet.net>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:47:22 -0600
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Davies-Craig EWP Test Results
References: <list-831484@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-831484@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

It would be interesting to put a valve downstream from the pump and 
close it just a tad (perhaps measure pressure drop across the valve or 
perhaps across the pump) and see how a restriction affects flow.
Inquiring minds need to know :o) ... Jim S.

Bob White wrote:

>Hi Dave,
>
>The only restriction was the hoses I used for the test and the flow meter.  Flow
>was out of the bucket about an inch from the bottom thru the test setup and back
>into the top of the bucket with the hose submerged. The hose sizes are similar
>to what I'm planning on using in the plane.
>
>Bob W.
>
>
>On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:38:42 -0800
>"DaveLeonard" <daveleonard@cox.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>MessageBob was there any resistance to flow?  The could perform quite
>>differently if they are pumping against resistance.
>>
>>Dave Leonard
>>
>>   Th e tiny D-C pump outperforms the WP136.
>>
>>  Great report Bob!  Sounds like the little plastic Davies Craig pump is the
>>hands down winner over the WP136 Meziere.  I'm not too concerned about the
>>motor temp, because it's obviously made to run that hot, and still give good
>>service life.  The best part about the test is that you did it, and my WP136
>>is still new in the box.  Now I can send it back to Summit for a refund :-)
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>  Rusty (hoping for two successful posts in a row)
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>