X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.27.212] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4313588 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 13 May 2010 15:39:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.27.212; envelope-from=wschertz@comcast.net Received: from omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.51]) by qmta14.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id H75R1e00716AWCUAE7fMxD; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:39:21 +0000 Received: from sz0070.ev.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.26.124]) by omta06.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id H7fL1e00A2gfN2s8S7fL4G; Thu, 13 May 2010 19:39:20 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 19:39:20 +0000 (UTC) From: wschertz@comcast.net To: Rotary motors in aircraft Message-ID: <683025297.19145701273779560394.JavaMail.root@sz0070a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <1114412229.19145051273779481620.JavaMail.root@sz0070a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1024207_713042751.1273779560393" X-Originating-IP: [71.57.77.95] X-Mailer: Zimbra 5.0.19_GA_3172.RHEL5_64 (ZimbraWebClient - IE7 (Win)/5.0.19_GA_3177.RHEL5_64) ------=_Part_1024207_713042751.1273779560393 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Where the pump curve and the load curve meet is where you expect to be. I m= ust have been at the ~3730 rpm when I did the test.=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "Bill Bradburry" =20 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" =20 Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:48:01 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump=20 Bill.=20 I am really good at reading someone else=E2=80=99s graphs=E2=80=A6Ha!=C2=A0= =C2=A0 :>)=20 So does this show that at 5594 rpm, and 6 lbs pressure, when you would expe= ct 38 GPM, you actually got 24 GPM?=C2=A0 You are very close to the curve f= or 3730 FPM.=C2=A0 Is that what you were running during your test?=20 Or, as would be expected, am I misreading your graphs?=C2=A0 :>)=20 Bill B=20 From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Beh= alf Of Bill Schertz=20 Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:39 AM=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump=20 Back in 2002 I measured the flow from a 13-B pump, attached to the engine b= ut driven with an electric motor. The curve is attached. I ran the pump at = 3 different RPM, established by changing the pulley size on the motor. At 5= 594 rpm, the pump produced 19 psi at zero flow, and 44 gpm at 0 psi. At low= er RPM, the pump of course pumps less.=20 The other test I did was to measure the flow through one core of the two I = was using for my installation. That is the curve going up to the right with= the red dots as the experimental points. Since I am running my cores in pa= rallel, the right hand rising curve is a 'calculated' flow response for the= parallel cores.=20 Finally, I hooked up the cores to the system, and pumped water through them= . The single large point represents where the flow and pressure came out, v= ery close to the calculated expected response.=20 All flow measurements were done by the "bucket and stop-watch" technique, w= ith multiple runs to get the flow.=20 Bill Schertz=20 KIS Cruiser #4045=20 N343BS=20 Phase I testing=20 From: Al Gietzen=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump=20 Al,=20 Are you sure of the 40 GPM?=C2=A0 That seems like a lot.=C2=A0 My radiator = in/out is 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per minu= te at that flow rate.=C2=A0 That is over 7 miles per hour!=20 Bill B=20 When my 20B (with a 13B pump that Atkins referred to as =E2=80=98high flow= =E2=80=99) was on the dyno the measured flow was 48 gpm with the standard p= ulleys.=C2=A0 I expect the dyno cooling loop was fairly low pressure drop c= ompared to our typical systems, so I=E2=80=99m just guessing 40 gpm is in t= he ballpark.=C2=A0 628 fpm (10.5 ft/sec) would not be considered very high = - - above 15 ft/sec I=E2=80=99d consider high.=20 Al ------=_Part_1024207_713042751.1273779560393 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div style=3D'font-family: Arial; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000'>
Where the pump cu= rve and the load curve meet is where you expect to be. I must have been at = the ~3730 rpm when I did the test.

----= - Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth= .net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net= >
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:48:01 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Centr= al
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

Bill.

I am really good at r= eading someone else=E2=80=99s graphs=E2=80=A6Ha!   :>)<= /FONT>

 <= /P>

So does this show tha= t at 5594 rpm, and 6 lbs pressure, when you would expect 38 GPM, you actual= ly got 24 GPM?  You are very close to the curve for 3730 FPM.  Is= that what you were running during your test?

 <= /P>

Or, as would be expec= ted, am I misreading your graphs?  :>)

 <= /P>

Bill B<= /P>

 <= /P>

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill Schertz
<= SPAN style=3D"FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10= :39 AM
To: Rotary motors= in aircraft
Subject: [F= lyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

 

Back in 2002 I measured the flow from a 13-B pump= , attached to the engine but driven with an electric motor. The curve is at= tached. I ran the pump at 3 different RPM, established by changing the pull= ey size on the motor. At 5594 rpm, the pump produced 19 psi at zero flow, a= nd 44 gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course pumps less.

 

The other test I did was to measure the flow thro= ugh one core of the two I was using for my installation. That is the curve = going up to the right with the red dots as the experimental points. Since I= am running my cores in parallel, the right hand rising curve is a 'calcula= ted' flow response for the parallel cores.

 

Finally, I hooked up the cores to the system, and= pumped water through them. The single large point represents where the flo= w and pressure came out, very close to the calculated expected response.

 

All flow measurements were done by the "bucket an= d stop-watch" technique, with multiple runs to get the flow.<= /P>

 

Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
Ph= ase I testing

 

From: Al Gietzen

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative wate= r pump

 

Al,

Are you sure of the 40 GPM?  That seems like a lot.  My ra= diator in/out is 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet p= er minute at that flow rate.  That is over 7 miles per hour!

 

Bill= B

When my 20B (with a 13B pump that Atkins referred to as =E2=80= =98high flow=E2=80=99) was on the dyno the measured flow was 48 gpm with th= e standard pulleys.  I expect the dyno cooling loop was fairly low pre= ssure drop compared to our typical systems, so I=E2=80=99m just guessing 40= gpm is in the ballpark.  628 fpm (10.5 ft/sec) would not be considere= d very high - - above 15 ft/sec I=E2=80=99d consider high.

Al

------=_Part_1024207_713042751.1273779560393--