Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pictures of Hale 8FG pumps showing intake and discharge manifolds

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    It's only a 6" intake because it's rated for 1500 gpm rather the 2000. If 2000 gpm is enough, I believe the S100 is a better option then Hale. Dual stripping edges balance out the side load on the shaft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johngagemn
    replied
    Originally posted by VanIsleEVT View Post
    I know it's an S100, I spec'd that truck.
    LOL, right on.

    Leave a comment:


  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    I know it's an S100, I spec'd that truck.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johngagemn
    replied
    Originally posted by VanIsleEVT View Post
    This one isn't a Hale but would is a similar manifold set-up. The exception is the 8FG would require two 6" intakes.
    That is a Waterous S100, looks to be the version with a 6" Victaulic inlet. It is also available with an 8" inlet.

    Leave a comment:


  • firepundit
    replied
    http://www.haleproducts.com/_Downloa...%20PL784AH.pdf

    Here is the Hale drawing for that pump. It does not come standard with a manifold. It comes with an 8" suction flange and a 6" discharge flange.

    Leave a comment:


  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    I don't recall the details on this rig. Maybe Blitzfiresolo can chime in.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    This one isn't a Hale but would is a similar manifold set-up. The exception is the 8FG would require two 6" intakes.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • Command6
    replied
    Originally posted by Johngagemn View Post
    If the pump is going to flow only when big water is required an 8FG is a good choice, if the majority of the time it's going to flow a few hand lines it is a poor choice.
    I tend to agree with this ideology. Our department has one 8FG: on an aerial platform. The pumpers still get the Q-Max. To echo an earlier statement, The 8FG is well-suited for a "big water" truck.

    Don't know if this is important, but the 8FG is only available with mechanical seals.

    C6

    Leave a comment:


  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    I should note, I believe those pics are all Saulsbury built trucks.

    Leave a comment:


  • VanIsleEVT
    replied
    I knew I had these pictures somewhere, just took awhile to find them. I'm pretty sure they are 8FG, they're Hale pumps anyways. They are from years ago when I was first researching rear mounts.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • txgp17
    replied
    Originally posted by chiefengineer11 View Post
    Try to contact Gary Handwerk (Global Pump Product Manager) at Hale, get his thoughts on the subject. Gary, as much as I used to torment him over single stage/two stage, is one of the more knowledgeable people on the subject, especially with regard to Hale. He's based in Florida, but if you call Hale in Conshohocken, they can give you contact info.
    I've been in contact with Gary. I have his phone # and e-mail address. He's been extremely helpful so far. He recommended the 8FK (same pump, different transmission), and offered look over our (Qmax) specs to make sure there wouldn't be any problems. I've e-mailed him twice in the last month, but he's not yet responded.

    Gary told me a while back that St Louis FD switched to using the 8FG on everything.

    The obstacle right now is convincing my Dept's administration.

    Leave a comment:


  • chiefengineer11
    replied
    Originally posted by Johngagemn View Post
    QMax and 8FG is kind of an apples and broccoli comparison, one is a dual suction eye fully manifolded pump, the other is a single suction eye end suction pump. Single suction eye pumps are much more prone to problems with recirculation cavitation from operations at lower flow rates than dual suction eye manifolded pumps are. The bigger the pump, the more water you have to continuously flow to prevent it. If the pump is going to flow only when big water is required an 8FG is a good choice, if the majority of the time it's going to flow a few hand lines it is a poor choice.

    By the way, ratings from positive pressure sources are bull. The limitation when operating from a hydrant is almost never the pump, it is usually (in order):

    1. The hydrant
    2. The supply hose
    3. The number of discharges on the truck.

    As an example, at an engineering class many years ago, I operated a 1978 pumper with a Waterous CM two stage pump rated at 1250 GPM from a private hydrant system at a refinery. We had all 5 discharges wide open flowing through multiple monitors and were flowing nearly 4000 GPM with plenty of residual intake pressure. Our limitation was the number of discharges on the truck.

    When someone throws numbers around in an advertisement saying what a pump will do from a hydrant, it's like advertising how fast a car will get to 60 MPH if you're already driving 55.
    Pay close attention to johngage's comments, especially with respect to recirculation cavitation. Try to contact Gary Handwerk (Global Pump Product Manager) at Hale, get his thoughts on the subject. Gary, as much as I used to torment him over single stage/two stage, is one of the more knowledgeable people on the subject, especially with regard to Hale. He's based in Florida, but if you call Hale in Conshohocken, they can give you contact info.

    Leave a comment:


  • txgp17
    replied
    Originally posted by MG3610 View Post
    At what point is overkill too much. The 8FG is a big pump. I would think you would be just fine with a Qmax.
    When is overkill too much? I'd say when you spend extra money on it with anticipated gain. From what I've read, an 8FG pump is not too much more than a Qmax.

    We're buying an engine with enough torque to run a 3,000 GPM pump, why not take advantage of the power, especially is your water supply can give you that much water.
    Originally posted by MG3610 View Post
    We have an 8FG on an E-One. Its a beast, and since 1998, has yet to be used to even close to its capacity. If you want some pics of it (they would be looking into the pump house (don't have any from construction) let me know.
    Please, if you have some time to spare, I've love to have some snap shots. The pump itself isn't as important as the suction and discharge manifolds.

    Leave a comment:


  • MG3610
    replied
    At what point is overkill too much. The 8FG is a big pump. I would think you would be just fine with a Qmax.

    What I would say is having a pump with that high of a rating can gain you some advantage with longer suction hose lays if you have those issues.

    We have an 8FG on an E-One. Its a beast, and since 1998, has yet to be used to even close to its capacity. If you want some pics of it (they would be looking into the pump house (don't have any from construction) let me know.

    I see 8FGs on refinery rigs more commonly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johngagemn
    replied
    Originally posted by txgp17 View Post
    That was a typo, I corrected the post. I think the 8FG is the best choice for what we're looking for.

    It will have to be midship. I prefer the rear mount, but it would be easier to convince them to install a flux-capacitor and a Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator than go to a rear mount.

    I'm all about some overkill. For years, we've been buying Qmax's and rating them at 1,000 GPM. Rating a 8FG at 2,000 wouldn't be any different. I don't know that they have a real reason for rating it at 2,000 GPM. A 1,000 GPM rated Qmax will still flow 2,250 GPM from a draft, assuming you have the correct intake & discharge connections, and the horsepower to push it.

    On a side note, the Qmax is advertised to flow up to 3,000 GPM from pressurized sources. For really big fires, we have ring main manifolds that can supply 4,000 GPM. In such a scenario, an 8FG would be able to take advantage of the full 4,000 GPM, while the Qmax would not, again, that's assuming you've equipped the 8FG with the proper intakes and discharges.
    QMax and 8FG is kind of an apples and broccoli comparison, one is a dual suction eye fully manifolded pump, the other is a single suction eye end suction pump. Single suction eye pumps are much more prone to problems with recirculation cavitation from operations at lower flow rates than dual suction eye manifolded pumps are. The bigger the pump, the more water you have to continuously flow to prevent it. If the pump is going to flow only when big water is required an 8FG is a good choice, if the majority of the time it's going to flow a few hand lines it is a poor choice.

    By the way, ratings from positive pressure sources are bull. The limitation when operating from a hydrant is almost never the pump, it is usually (in order):

    1. The hydrant
    2. The supply hose
    3. The number of discharges on the truck.

    As an example, at an engineering class many years ago, I operated a 1978 pumper with a Waterous CM two stage pump rated at 1250 GPM from a private hydrant system at a refinery. We had all 5 discharges wide open flowing through multiple monitors and were flowing nearly 4000 GPM with plenty of residual intake pressure. Our limitation was the number of discharges on the truck.

    When someone throws numbers around in an advertisement saying what a pump will do from a hydrant, it's like advertising how fast a car will get to 60 MPH if you're already driving 55.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X