X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTP id 613828 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:26:07 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.64; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm58aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050724222512.JBTW15320.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm58aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:25:12 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm58aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050724222511.GZIM9746.ibm58aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:25:11 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Mazda Factory O rings vs TES O rings Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 17:25:11 -0500 Message-ID: <00ce01c5909e$8e943fc0$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CF_01C59074.A5BE37C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_00CF_01C59074.A5BE37C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm wondering why people like Tracy Crook and Bruce Turrentine bother = with TES "O" rings. I think they may have a better idea - don't you! =20 You don't seem to be wondering why they DON'T use them on the outer = O-ring :-) =20 =20 Seriously, you're absolutely right about this being appropriate for the list, and it's human nature to want to improve things. Unfortunately, = until it's proven with some hours on a flying engine, you can only hope that = it will be at least as good as the stock ring, since they never fail. =20 =20 One good thing that came out of this thread for me is learning that = Mazda went back to putting the o-rings in the rotor housings. I hadn't = realized that. I did a check on the stock Mazda o-rings though, and note that = there is a different part number for 74-85, and 86-95 (and later in other countries). I wouldn't be too quick to assume the size of the Renesis = seal, or the pre-86 seal will be the same as the one on the end housing that Kelley is sending Creavey. =20 =20 Enjoy your TES quest. Rusty (new intake has been canceled, back to the single rotor Kolb) ------=_NextPart_000_00CF_01C59074.A5BE37C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I'm wondering why people like Tracy = Crook and Bruce=20 Turrentine bother with TES "O" rings. I think they may have a better = idea -=20 don't you!
 
You don't=20 seem to be wondering why they DON'T use them on the outer O-ring=20 :-)  
 
Seriously,=20 you're absolutely right about this being appropriate for the list, and = it's=20 human nature to want to improve things.  Unfortunately, until it's = proven=20 with some hours on a flying engine, you can only hope that it will be at = least=20 as good as the stock ring, since they never fail.   =20
 
One good=20 thing that came out of this thread for me is learning that Mazda = went back=20 to putting the o-rings in the rotor housings.  I hadn't realized=20 that.  I did a check on the stock Mazda o-rings though, = and note=20 that there is a different part number for 74-85, and 86-95 (and later in = other=20 countries).  I wouldn't be too quick to assume the size of = the Renesis=20 seal, or the pre-86 seal will be the same as the one on the end housing = that=20 Kelley is sending Creavey.   
 
Enjoy your=20 TES quest.
Rusty (new=20 intake has been canceled, back to the single rotor=20 Kolb)
------=_NextPart_000_00CF_01C59074.A5BE37C0--