X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from poplet2.per.eftel.com ([203.24.100.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.7) with ESMTP id 4314971 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 14 May 2010 17:37:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.24.100.45; envelope-from=lendich@aanet.com.au Received: from sv1-1.aanet.com.au (mail.aanet.com.au [203.24.100.34]) by poplet2.per.eftel.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEF1173971 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 05:37:01 +0800 (WST) Received: from ownerf1fc517b8 (203.171.92.134.static.rev.aanet.com.au [203.171.92.134]) by sv1-1.aanet.com.au (Postfix) with SMTP id 810A5BEC001 for ; Sat, 15 May 2010 05:36:59 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 07:37:02 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006C_01CAF401.6893ECF0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 100514-1, 05/14/2010), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CAF401.6893ECF0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, I like your graph, it shows that the expected flow is lower than that = approaching cavitation ( 53 gpm) at our speeds ( to 7,200). I calculate = that cavitation speeds approaching 9,000rpm is the danger area, and the = need for racing pulleys is ruled out as suggested by someone, some time = ago. Lynn would know for sure. George (down under) Where the pump curve 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" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:48:01 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump Bill. I am really good at reading someone else=E2=80=99s graphs=E2=80=A6Ha! = :>) So does this show that at 5594 rpm, and 6 lbs pressure, when you would = expect 38 GPM, you actually got 24 GPM? You are very close to the curve = for 3730 FPM. Is that what you were running during your test? Or, as would be expected, am I misreading your graphs? :>)=20 Bill B -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Bill Schertz Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:39 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] 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 attached. I ran = the pump at 3 different RPM, established by changing the pulley size on = the motor. At 5594 rpm, the pump produced 19 psi at zero flow, and 44 = gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course pumps less. 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 parallel, the right hand rising curve is a 'calculated' 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 flow and pressure came = out, very close to the calculated expected response. All flow measurements were done by the "bucket and stop-watch" = technique, with multiple runs to get the flow. Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS Phase I testing From: Al Gietzen=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump Al, Are you sure of the 40 GPM? That seems like a lot. My radiator = in/out is 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per = 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 the = standard pulleys. I expect the dyno cooling loop was fairly low = pressure 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 = considered very high - - above 15 ft/sec I=E2=80=99d consider high. Al ------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CAF401.6893ECF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Bill,
I like your graph, it shows that the = expected flow=20 is lower than that approaching cavitation ( 53 gpm) at our speeds ( to = 7,200).=20 I calculate that cavitation speeds approaching 9,000rpm is the = danger area,=20 and the need for racing pulleys is ruled out as suggested by someone, = some time=20 ago.
Lynn would know for sure.
George (down under)
Where the=20 pump curve and the load curve meet is where you expect to be. I must = have been=20 at the ~3730 rpm when I did the test.

-----=20 Original Message -----
From: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>=
To:=20 "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent:=20 Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:48:01 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada = Central
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water pump

Bill.

I am really = good at=20 reading someone else=E2=80=99s graphs=E2=80=A6Ha!   = :>)

 

So does = this show=20 that at 5594 rpm, and 6 lbs pressure, when you would expect 38 GPM, = you=20 actually got 24 GPM?  You are very close to the curve for 3730 = FPM. =20 Is that what you were running during your test?

 

Or, as = would be=20 expected, am I misreading your graphs?  :>)

 

Bill=20 B

 

From: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill = Schertz
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 = 10:39=20 AM
To: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary]=20 Re: alternative water pump

 

Back in 2002 I measured = the flow=20 from a 13-B pump, attached to the engine but driven with an electric = motor.=20 The curve is attached. I ran the pump at 3 different RPM, established = by=20 changing the pulley size on the motor. At 5594 rpm, the pump produced = 19 psi=20 at zero flow, and 44 gpm at 0 psi. At lower RPM, the pump of course = pumps=20 less.

 

The other test I did was = to=20 measure the flow through one core of the two I was using for my = installation.=20 That is the curve going up to the right with the red dots as the = experimental=20 points. Since I am running my cores in parallel, the right hand rising = curve=20 is a 'calculated' flow response for the parallel=20 cores.

 

Finally, I hooked up the = cores to=20 the system, and pumped water through them. The single large point = represents=20 where the flow and pressure came out, very close to the calculated = expected=20 response.

 

All flow measurements = were done by=20 the "bucket and stop-watch" technique, with multiple runs to get the=20 flow.

 

Bill Schertz
KIS = Cruiser=20 #4045
N343BS
Phase I testing

 

From: Al=20 Gietzen

Sent:=20 Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:54 AM

To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: alternative water = pump

 

Al,

Are you=20 sure of the 40 GPM?  That seems like a lot.  My radiator = in/out is=20 1.25 inches, so the water would be traveling at 628 feet per minute at = that=20 flow rate.  That is over 7 miles per hour!

 

Bill=20 B

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

Al

------=_NextPart_000_006C_01CAF401.6893ECF0--