X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.3) with ESMTPS id 2930284 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 20 May 2008 09:08:18 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.71; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,515,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="48370268" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 May 2008 06:07:34 -0700 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4KD7YcO028858 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 06:07:34 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m4KD7YTm016873 for ; Tue, 20 May 2008 13:07:34 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:07:33 -0400 Received: from [64.102.38.155] ([64.102.38.155]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 20 May 2008 09:07:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4832CD24.6030409@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 09:07:48 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Hushpower muffler update References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 May 2008 13:07:33.0687 (UTC) FILETIME=[77B02C70:01C8BA7A] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=echristley@nc.rr.com; dkim=neutral Ed Anderson wrote: > Anyone else having a problem with the Hushpower II other than Jason? > > I have two on my installation and they have worked fine (so far) and I have the turbo block without the exhaust splitters making for a pretty powerful exhaust pulse. > > With two, the heat load for each is cut in half. The muffler's longevity is dependant upon it's ability to withstand both the pulse and the temperature, isn't it? To me, this suggests an alternative strategy to maintaining the muffler's efficacy. Make it thick enough to handle the pulse, but provide some sort of blast cooling to maintain the metal's strength.