X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.5) with ESMTP id 1452122 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:17:39 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.32; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061009221717.PHYC21457.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:17:17 -0400 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.132.90]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id YNH71V00o1xAn3c0000000 Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:17:08 -0400 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust Update Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:17:19 -0700 Message-ID: <000001c6ebf0$af7c11a0$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6EBB6.031D39A0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6EBB6.031D39A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 Which photos? There were 5 or so pics attached to the first message. = Did you get those? What else you want pics of - I'm headed up there today = or tomorrow?? =20 Joe =20 Joe; There was something peculiar about your first message - delivery here = was delayed by several hours. Maybe Buly will eventually get it also. = Probably the hyperspace police had to analyze it first. =20 Some photos of the support and heat shielding would be very interesting. Also, what material(s) are used. =20 You also said: Obviously the Tangential muffler sucks (actually blows) = when it comes to performance! WAY too much back pressure. =20 I'm thinking this may be too much of a generalization. The performance = of my 20B measured on the dyno (quite good) was with a tangential muffler; although with some differences. I added internal angled vanes opposite = the headers to avoid something called "swirl flow choking" which I though = might be a possibility. Maybe I was right. Also, the exit end on mine is = conical with some internal vanes to straighten the flow and reduce the pressure = drop due to the sudden contraction. =20 Perhaps with these differences the tangential muffler doesn't suck - but just blows. =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6EBB6.031D39A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Which photos?  There were 5 or so pics attached to the first message. = Did

you get those?  What else you want pics of - I'm headed up there today = or

tomorrow??

 

Joe

 <= /font>

Joe;

There was = something peculiar about your first message – delivery here was delayed by = several hours.  Maybe Buly will eventually get it also.  Probably the hyperspace police had to analyze it first.

 

Some photos of = the support and heat shielding would be very interesting.  Also, what = material(s) are used.

 

You also said: Obviously the Tangential = muffler sucks (actually blows) when it comes to performance! WAY too much back pressure.

 

I’m thinking this may be too much of a generalization.  The performance = of my 20B measured on the dyno (quite good) was with a tangential muffler; = although with some differences.  I added internal angled vanes opposite the = headers to avoid something called “swirl flow choking” which I = though might be a possibility.  Maybe I was right.  Also, the exit end on = mine is conical with some internal vanes to straighten the flow and reduce the = pressure drop due to the sudden contraction.

 

Perhaps with these differences the tangential muffler doesn’t suck – = but just blows.

 

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6EBB6.031D39A0--