Curtis-wright Aquires Benshaw

Curtiss-Wright Acquires Benshaw Advanced Controls & Drives

Expands Leadership in Electronic Motor Controls and Protection Technology
ROSELAND, N.J., Aug. 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Curtiss-Wright Corporation (NYSE: CW) announced today that it has acquired the stock of Benshaw Advanced Controls & Drives, of Pittsburgh, PA, for approximately $102 million in cash. Benshaw is a market leader in the design, development and manufacture of mission critical motor control and protection product solutions for leading original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and industrial customers. The business will become part of Curtiss-Wright's Flow Control segment.

As a leading electrical engineering and manufacturing company, Benshaw provides turnkey motor and machine control and protection solutions for OEM customers. In many applications, multiple motors are required to control a process. Benshaw typically controls and protects the complete system with one integrated panel. Benshaw engineers and manufactures a full range of rugged, reliable and internationally compliant products that smoothly control the amount of electrical current provided to motors. Custom panel solutions include a variety of low and medium voltage components, such as starters, drives, contactors, breakers and other related devices. Benshaw has an installed base of over 100,000 control units, with hundreds of custom systems designed.

"The addition of Benshaw to the Curtiss-Wright family of companies provides a major opportunity to expand our product offerings in the commercial power, control electronics and systems markets," said Curtiss-Wright Chairman and CEO Martin R. Benante. "Benshaw's expertise in electronic motor control and protection technology will support our growth in high speed motors and AP1000 pumps, as well as providing a low-cost manufacturing resource for future military applications."

Benshaw's customers are in the industrial HVAC market as well as the energy processing market, including petrochemicals, power generation, mining and transportation. Sales in 2006 were approximately $82 million. Its reputation as the industry leader in custom control solutions and related services has resulted in a premier customer base of some of the world's largest and most respected companies.

Founded in 1983, Benshaw employs approximately 410 people and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA, with 9 locations in the U.S. and two in Canada.

About Curtiss-Wright

Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a diversified company headquartered in Roseland, N.J. The company designs, manufactures and overhauls products for motion control and flow control applications, and provides a variety of metal treatment services. The firm employs approximately 6,800 people worldwide. More information on Curtiss-Wright can be found at www.curtisswright.com.

About Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp.

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control specializes in the design and manufacture of highly engineered valves, pumps, motors, generators, electronics and related products for the commercial nuclear power industry, oil and gas processing facilities, and a range of critical military programs. CWFC's innovative, high-performance products play an integral role in our nation's defense, and in the safe, efficient operation of power plants and other industrial sites worldwide. Based in Falls Church, VA, the company has 2,000 employees worldwide. For more information, visit www.cwfc.com.

This press release contains forward-looking statements made pursuant to the Safe Harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that are based on management's beliefs and assumptions. Such statements, including statements relating to Curtiss-Wright Corporation's expectations for future performance and opportunities, are not considered historical facts and are considered forward-looking statements under the federal securities laws. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward- looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to: a reduction in anticipated orders; an economic downturn; changes in competitive marketplace and/or customer requirements; a change in US and Foreign government spending; an inability to perform customer contracts at anticipated cost levels; and other factors that generally affect the business of aerospace, defense contracting, marine, electronics and industrial companies. Please refer to the Company's current SEC filings under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for further information.

Posted On: Wednesday, August 01, 2007

Let's open a pub

How do you feel about opening a 'pub' style forum where the members of LMPforums can communicate about all things NON-TECHNICAL and get to know each other on a more personal basis? There's got to be more to life than motor control!

Regards,
GGOSS

Auto-transformer starter - stange behaviour.

Hello all,

Just thought it would be worthwhile posting this question here in case others could benefit from the discussion that I expect will arise.

My question relates to an application issue involving the following;

Supply:
Primary 22kV, secondary 415V 50Hz, rating 315kVA

Motor:
Squirrell cage induction motor, 160kW 3-phase 415V 50Hz, 1448 RPM, FLC = 265 Amp, LRC = 577% FLC, LRT = 212% FLT, BDT = 273% FLT

Load:
Centrifugal pump

Starter:
3-phase Auto-transformer starter (Korndorfer connected) currently starting on the 50% tapping.

Line amps:
Chart recording reveals line amps increase to appox 3000 on mommnet of switch on. This gradually reduces to 1600 amps over the first second and is maintained at that level until the starter transitions to full voltage (6 seconds). At that stage the current drops immediately to 245 amps ie below motor nameplate FLC.

Line voltage:
Chart recording reveals this drops from nominal 250VAC phase-neutral to approx 117V at the momment of switch on. This gradually increases to 186V and is maintained at that level until the starter transitions to full voltage. At that stage the voltage rises immediately to 242V.

On occassions the start will cause the breaker on the 22kV supply to trip. Engineers involved have used that information together with other instrumentation to confirm the above-mentioned start current and start voltage recordings to be correct.

Theory suggests a start current (measured on the line side of the transformer) should not exceed 420 Amps asuming transformer losses of around 10%. In my opinion the supply transformer bordering on being too small for the connected load. Having said that I struggle to accept the high current & low voltage levels being recorded. The numbers don't appear to stack up!

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Regards,
GGOSS

Torque start

The manufacturers promotional literature suggests starting currents averaging 30% below that of competing soft starter products.

From my own experience (gained through field trialing several soft starter products with and without torque start/control functionality) I have not noted any significant improvements in either starting current or acceleration profile over product offering closed loop controlled current technology. In fact on several occassions the humble open loop controlled voltage current limiting soft starter appeared to outperform the more advanced technology.

I would be interested to receive your outline/explanation of how the MSF achieves such low starting currents. If you could also indicate the types of opposition soft starter products the MSF has been compared against (without mentioning names and the types of applications , that too would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance & regards,
GGOSS

How much energy did you say you could save?

Hi folks,

We have just completed an independant & detailed evaluation of one of the leading energy saver products and would like to present our findings to you.

- At 0% motor loading, a saving of less than 18% was achieved.

- At 25% motor loading, a saving of less than 3% was achieved.

- At 50% motor loading, a saving of less than 1% was achieved.

- At 75% motor loading, there was no energy saving to speak of.

- At 100% motor loading there was no energy saving, as you would expect.

As the above-mentioned results were achieved with a very small and inherently inefficient motor, we would expect savings potential to reduce as one moves up the kW spectrum ie where motors are generally far more efficient.

Note: The above results have not been posted in an attempt to dispute any claims made by manufacturers of this type of equipment and/or information presented by others who may have conducted similar performance appraisals. They have simply been posted to highlight that the overall performance one can expect from such devices is very much subject to variables (eg. motor design, efficiency, kW rating, number of poles & shaft loading) that are outside of our (and the product manufacturers) control. Identification of suitable applications prior to purchase is therefore strongly reccommended.

Regards,
GGOSS