Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:57:42 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6687779@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=72.30.235.212; envelope-from=casey.gary@yahoo.com
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=smxyds/h0mDgem7CXJxXztTXL6WFDTHyf4JkW/HpQW2Vpq4MipfTvk9wuPXxmonzYCFA1uuTGH3/S0sLpWNeAUQD9T6PKeklsD3O857VaLy+6RVBH9fJeMSumkQsr3C8VP7iEzDqRSB3nnD/kg41twZNNO/vh/bUic5BlhInd+s=;
From: Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:  Carburetor air intake filter
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1173436188-377135420-1389786377=:87235"

--1173436188-377135420-1389786377=:87235
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

There is always lots of discussion about air filters, and I believe you can=
 make a case for not using a filter at all. =A0It depends on how much groun=
d running you expect to do and the atmospheric conditions. =A0One takeoff a=
t a dry, dusty, windy airport might cause as much wear as 1,000 hours of in=
gesting clean air. =A0So, if you are willing to be cautious about the condi=
tions you fly in, I suppose that works.=0A=0ABut most aren't willing to tak=
e the risk - I wasn't, anyway. =A0But then I see lots of comments (also amo=
ng car enthusiasts) about K and N filters. =A0They are truly better - about=
 advertising. =A0Too bad their filters aren't as good. =A0I've tried to get=
 information from them about filtration efficiency and I've only got vague =
references to it being "really good." =A0Somewhere I have a technical paper=
 that compares their filter to typical paper filters. =A0Theirs has a filtr=
ation efficiency, when done according to SAE standards, of about 92 and may=
be 94 percent. =A0That sounds pretty good in the ads - only 6 percent of th=
e dirt gets through - by weight. =A0But most of the particles are small, so=
 if you want to count particles, a lot of them get through. =A0By contrast,=
 a typical paper filter has an efficiency of about 99 percent or more. =A0T=
he newer technology can be 99.7 percent =A0efficient. =A0So that says the K=
 and N filter passes at least 6 times and perhaps
 as much as 10 times as much dust as a paper filter. =A0And the paper filte=
r isn't just "paper," it is a very high-tech blend of natural and synthetic=
 material. =A0True, the paper filter of the same volume will have more rest=
riction - probably twice as much. =A0The power reduction might be something=
 like 2 percent with a paper filter and 1 percent with a K and N, but more =
like half that if you oversize the filter a little.=0A=0A=0ASo, is the bett=
er filtration worth losing 1 hp in an O-360? =A0For me, it is.=0AGary Casey=
=0A
--1173436188-377135420-1389786377=:87235
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:He=
lveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12pt"><div id=3D"yiv4376040354"><div><div style=3D"font-size: 12pt;=
"><div>There is always lots of discussion about air filters, and I believe =
you can make a case for not using a filter at all. &nbsp;It depends on how =
much ground running you expect to do and the atmospheric conditions. &nbsp;=
One takeoff at a dry, dusty, windy airport might cause as much wear as 1,00=
0 hours of ingesting clean air. &nbsp;So, if you are willing to be cautious=
 about the conditions you fly in, I suppose that works.</div><div><br clear=
=3D"none"></div><div style=3D"background-color: transparent;">But most aren=
't willing to take the risk - I wasn't, anyway. &nbsp;But then I see lots o=
f comments (also among car enthusiasts) about K and N filters. &nbsp;They a=
re truly better - about advertising. &nbsp;Too bad their filters aren't as
 good. &nbsp;I've tried to get information from them about filtration effic=
iency and I've only got vague references to it being "really good." &nbsp;S=
omewhere I have a technical paper that compares their filter to typical pap=
er filters. &nbsp;Theirs has a filtration efficiency, when done according t=
o SAE standards, of about 92 and maybe 94 percent. &nbsp;That sounds pretty=
 good in the ads - only 6 percent of the dirt gets through - by weight. &nb=
sp;But most of the particles are small, so if you want to count particles, =
a lot of them get through. &nbsp;By contrast, a typical paper filter has an=
 efficiency of about 99 percent or more. &nbsp;The newer technology can be =
99.7 percent &nbsp;efficient. &nbsp;So that says the K and N filter passes =
at least 6 times and perhaps as much as 10 times as much dust as a paper fi=
lter. &nbsp;And the paper filter isn't just "paper," it is a very high-tech=
 blend of natural and synthetic material. &nbsp;True, the paper
 filter of the same volume will have more restriction - probably twice as m=
uch. &nbsp;The power reduction might be something like 2 percent with a pap=
er filter and 1 percent with a K and N, but more like half that if you over=
size the filter a little.</div><div class=3D"yiv4376040354yqt9925316431" id=
=3D"yiv4376040354yqtfd03331"><div style=3D"background-color: transparent;">=
<br clear=3D"none"></div><div style=3D"background-color: transparent;">So, =
is the better filtration worth losing 1 hp in an O-360? &nbsp;For me, it is=
.</div><div style=3D"background-color: transparent;">Gary Casey</div><div><=
br></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>
--1173436188-377135420-1389786377=:87235--