Return-Path: <cengland@netdoor.com>
Received: from smtp2.netdoor.com ([208.137.128.155] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8)
  with ESMTP id 3124522 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 23:20:17 -0500
Received: from netdoor.com (port619.jxn.netdoor.com [208.148.209.19])
	by smtp2.netdoor.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i2R4KFWa005918
	for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:20:16 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <406500FB.1050103@netdoor.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:20:11 -0600
From: Charlie & Tupper England <cengland@netdoor.com>
Reply-To: cengland@netdoor.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: cooling duct seal?
References: <list-3122331@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-3122331@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.1
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang)

Ernest Christley wrote:

> Charlie & Tupper England wrote:
>
>> If you are talking about sealing around a firewall penetration, you 
>> might want to look at the fire-stop caulks available from any 
>> electrical or communications supply house. Much higer heat 
>> resistance. Comes in a standard caulk tube.
>>
>> Charlie
>
>
> Sounds reasonable.  I'm assuming that the same "impregnate the 
> fiberglass trick" will work?
>
The samples I've seen are a bit thicker than caulk. Might still work though.