X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Received: from imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.64] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.7) with ESMTP id 1920715 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:37:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.64; envelope-from=rusty@radrotary.com Received: from ibm58aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20070314153639.HSEG28456.imf16aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm58aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:36:39 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm58aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20070314153639.YYDY17681.ibm58aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:36:39 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: HushPower Mufflers Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 10:36:39 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c7664e$8f4deec0$6e01a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C76624.A677E6C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6822 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcdmSJsm790tK6NiSBK86ZZRDOM/XgABFQUQ In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C76624.A677E6C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Looks like there will probably be a net weight reduction of approx 1 lb. But the sound reduction should be much higher {:>).=20 =20 Hi Ed, =20 Sorry if I missed this (been kinda skimming the posts recently), but are = you planning to make a more conventional system using just one one muffler? = If so, I won't be surprised if you don't end up making more power, AND = getting quieter exhaust. What will Ron have to complain about then :-) =20 =20 By the way, I see you must have access to the resonator - did you ever = try just the resonator by itself as a muffler? =20 I bought the resonator when someone else (sorry, can't recall who) = mentioned it on the list. I thought it might be at least enough of a muffler to = work for the single rotor, and it's clearly lighter. My plan is to try it = and see how it sounds. I still have the muffler set up to use on the single rotor, so perhaps I could get a comparison between the two. This is = just another good reason to run the single rotor on a test stand for a while, = to sort these things out.=20 =20 Rusty (retrieved the Dominator on a long road trip yesterday)=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C76624.A677E6C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Looks like there will probably be a net weight = reduction=20 of approx 1 lb.  But the sound reduction should be much higher=20 {:>). 
 
Hi=20 Ed,
 
Sorry=20 if I missed this (been kinda skimming the posts recently), but are you = planning=20 to make a more conventional system using just one one=20 muffler?  If so, I won't be surprised if you don't end up = making more=20 power, AND getting quieter exhaust.  What will Ron have to = complain=20 about then :-)   
 
By the way, I see you must have access to the = resonator -=20 did you ever try just the resonator by itself as a muffler?
 
I bought the=20 resonator when someone else (sorry, can't recall who) mentioned it = on the=20 list.  I thought it might be at least enough of a muffler to work = for the=20 single rotor, and it's clearly lighter.  My plan is to try it and = see how=20 it sounds.  I still have the muffler set up to use on the = single=20 rotor, so perhaps I could get a comparison between the = two.  This is=20 just another good reason to run the single rotor on a test = stand for a=20 while, to sort these things out. 
 
Rusty=20 (retrieved the Dominator on a long road trip=20 yesterday) 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C76624.A677E6C0--