X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao101.cox.net ([68.230.241.45] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3540341 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:37:34 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.45; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao101.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090309163651.EBKU27308.fed1rmmtao101.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:36:51 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.133.251]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id R4cr1b00F5RcKeo044crTL; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:36:51 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=FusCm-rYEWI8JVTcSbMA:9 a=-L31-l2Er3TYY-T8yIoA:7 a=-pj3uargHpE_O_xIRHp0qg11JC8A:4 a=5WZzfXpOq_gA:10 a=-1rUYJuvKTodK2NXcnsA:9 a=G751ce8z1rpLvq4m8csA:7 a=RbcfgalFYaOYFqYk3jZvPkOhoeEA:4 a=37WNUvjkh6kA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Ground Testing Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 08:38:14 -0800 Message-ID: <21586F1AA8DA4964937B9B91590ADC5B@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0039_01C9A092.62FE6B80" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-index: Acmgvr6sLQFym29lSfKO7phnf22dhQAFgBog This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C9A092.62FE6B80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In some ways the turbo removes, rather than adds, complexity. After all=20 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 =20 Perhaps you are generalizing a bit too broadly. =20 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. =20 Al G ------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C9A092.62FE6B80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

 <= /font>

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.

 <= /font>

Al = G

------=_NextPart_000_0039_01C9A092.62FE6B80--