X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3542264 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:00 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.44; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090310165923.SIDC13097.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:59:23 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.133.251]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id RUzM1b00G5RcKeo04UzMy3; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:59:22 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=C0LSruRVyCyxA05ZTRIA:9 a=ipatZ-knx1ItF6FupfMA:7 a=fdFNgmHiXkbiUOjVMZOCzo3ltzoA:4 a=sNEyDEdYjLsA:10 a=zCwBIfuH9sn3QEE8z0UA:9 a=ytz1-FEpiKnUGWmPvj8A:7 a=EPoVj12yqxC0q6uWGjNR_hhzGIQA:4 a=37WNUvjkh6kA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:00:46 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9A15E.B38363E0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcmhfLh9lwm3vKf3REmCfyGURuhHzAAJOEcg This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9A15E.B38363E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Good to hear the other side of the story, Al. If I recall correctly, your install is a 20B on a Velocity. Is that = correct? Thanks. John =20 Yes, John; that is correct. =20 Al G =20 Al Gietzen wrote: > > In some ways the turbo removes, rather than adds, complexity. After = all > > these years we're still looking for a muffler that holds together. A = few > > of the "prop on the front" guys may be getting close > > Perhaps you are generalizing a bit too broadly. > > I certainly not anti turbo; but based on what I have read on this=20 > forum, it clearly adds some complexity. And I have an inconel=20 > tangential muffler, and a SS secondary muffler, both inside the cowl,=20 > on a pusher - and both are doing fine approaching 150 hours, and=20 > nothing in the cowling is being damaged by the heat. > > Al G > =20 =20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9A15E.B38363E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Good to hear the other side of the story, Al.

If I recall correctly, your install is a 20B on a Velocity. Is that = correct?

Thanks.

John

Yes, John; = that is correct.

<= /font>

Al = G

<= /font>

Al Gietzen wrote:

> In some ways the turbo removes, rather than adds, complexity. After = all

> these years we're still looking for a muffler that holds together. A = few

> of the "prop on the front" guys may be getting = close

> Perhaps you are generalizing a bit too broadly.

> I certainly not anti turbo; but based on what I have read on this =

> forum, it clearly adds some complexity. And I have an inconel =

> tangential muffler, and a SS secondary muffler, both inside the cowl, =

> on a pusher – and both are doing fine approaching 150 hours, and =

> nothing in the cowling is being damaged by the heat.

> Al G

Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= /p>

------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C9A15E.B38363E0--