X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao107.cox.net ([68.230.241.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with ESMTP id 2779302 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:02:33 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=rv-4mike@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20080306040152.GPLM8249.fed1rmmtao107.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2008 23:01:52 -0500 Received: from wills ([68.105.86.251]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id xg1d1Y00A5RMxr00000000; Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:01:39 -0500 Message-ID: <006601c87f3e$cec55d40$fb566944@wills> From: "Mike Wills" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust Wrap was [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust? Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 20:01:44 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0063_01C87EFB.C049EB20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C87EFB.C049EB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What's not to like? This is easy on straight sections but not so where = the pipe curves. Would be really tough to shield my exhaust like this. I = havent tested anything like this but suspect that it is not as effective = an insulator as the wrap or some other sort of barrier (like the Zetex = or Fiberfrax). My exhaust is made of .060 mandrel bent 321 stainless and coated in and = out with a 2000 degree ceramic coating. So not sure how relavent the = comparisons to wrapped mild steel are. I agree with the inspection = related comments. But would like to hear from anyone who has used the = tape in an aircraft install where the high heat is constant, on a = comparable exhaust (i.e. 321 stainless). The real issue here is my cowl is close. And after all the work to make = it the prospect of burning it up isnt an option. Lesson learned is to = make sure ALL engine work including fabrication of exhaust is complete = before making a cowl. But that ship has sailed so now I'm looking at = ways to recover. The simple shields that Lynn proposed will leave too = many gaps and too much potential for cooking the cowl. The Zetex looks like a possible answer if I can find a source other than = the manufacturer that has small quantities available. Anybody have any experience with Fiberfrax (Aircraft Spruce sells it; = claims its good to 2200 degrees)? Mike ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:45 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust Wrap was [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust?=20 I think that's what the Doctor ordered, Lynn Simple, effective, light weight, permits inspection, relatively = inexpensive, can be easily removed, does not cause deterioration of the = tubing, can be done in home work shop. =20 What's not to like {:>) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Lehanover@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 3:20 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust Wrap was [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust?=20 OK, How about this.=20 A shield in .015" stainless. The tabs can be bent inboard to take up = less space. The air gap can be as little as 1/2". Only needed on the = side where some protection is required. Very light. Can be wired on = instead of hose clamps. Removable for tubing inspection.=20 Lynn E. Hanover In a message dated 3/5/2008 11:06:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, = eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: I just do not think any sort of exhaust wrap belongs in an = aircraft. It might work just fine - but, if it does not........., = ..but, just my opinion. Ed -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --- -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C87EFB.C049EB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
What's not to like? This is easy on straight sections but not so = where the=20 pipe curves. Would be really tough to shield my exhaust like = this. I havent=20 tested anything like this but suspect that it is not as effective an = insulator=20 as the wrap or some other sort of barrier (like the Zetex or = Fiberfrax).
 
My exhaust is made of .060 mandrel bent 321 stainless and coated in = and out=20 with a 2000 degree ceramic coating. So not sure how relavent the = comparisons to=20 wrapped mild steel are. I agree with the inspection related comments. = But would=20 like to hear from anyone who has used the tape in an aircraft install = where the=20 high heat is constant, on a comparable exhaust (i.e. 321 = stainless).
 
The real issue here is my cowl is close. And after all the work to = make it=20 the prospect of burning it up isnt an option. Lesson learned is to make = sure ALL=20 engine work including fabrication of exhaust is complete before making a = cowl.=20 But that ship has sailed so now I'm looking at ways to recover. The = simple=20 shields that Lynn proposed will leave too many gaps and too much = potential for=20 cooking the cowl.
 
The Zetex looks like a possible answer if I can find a source other = than=20 the manufacturer that has small quantities available.
 
Anybody have any experience with Fiberfrax (Aircraft Spruce sells = it;=20 claims its good to 2200 degrees)?
 
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 = 1:45=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Exhaust Wrap was=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust?

I think that's what the Doctor ordered, = Lynn
 
Simple, effective, light weight, permits = inspection,=20 relatively inexpensive, can be easily removed, does not cause = deterioration of=20 the tubing, can be done in home work shop. 
 
 
What's not to like {:>)
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Lehanover@aol.com
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, = 2008 3:20=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Exhaust Wrap=20 was [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust?

OK, How about this.
 
A shield in .015" stainless. The tabs can be bent inboard to = take up=20 less space. The air gap can be as little as 1/2". Only needed on the = side=20 where some protection is required. Very light. Can be wired on = instead of=20 hose clamps. Removable for tubing inspection.
 
Lynn E. Hanover
 
 
 
In a message dated 3/5/2008 11:06:41 A.M. Eastern Standard = Time,=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes:
I just do not think any sort of exhaust wrap = belongs in=20 an aircraft.  It might work just fine - but, if it does = not.........,=20 ..but, just my opinion.
 
Ed



--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive = and=20 UnSub:  =20 = http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01C87EFB.C049EB20--