|
|
The issue here is how long your exhaust will last under normal conditions. If you are going turbo, your ONLY choice is 321, and should be the only choice for NA. It's a little more money, but will last longer. I am using 16 GA, or .065 wall 2" dia., from the turbo to the flange, and the same wall for the drop tube. We are generating between 1600 to 2000 deg. of heat here, and 304 just won't hold up, even if ceramic coated. Iconel, on the other hand is overkill. It lives at 2000+ degrees, and doesn't like it at lower temps, and will degrade, plus it's very expensive. As I said earlier, Burns (http://www.burnsstainless.com/321tubing/321tubing.html) has what you need, and they are quick to turn around an order.
Greg Ward
Lancair 20B N178RG in progress
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Silvius" <silvius@gwi.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:12 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: exhaust building
Dale:
I guess my question is; is it acceptable to use the more readily available
304 SS and what thickness (.065 seems to be common) for our application or
should we hold out for 321?
most of the 321 seems to be available in .035 wall. Is that thick enough?
Michael
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Rogers" <dale.r@cox.net>
Michael Silvius wrote:
> ... what is the difference between that and 321 and which is preferable
for our
> exhaust building?
304 has about 6% more Chromium and about 100x the Nickel content of 321.
321 contains about .7% Titanium; 304 has none.
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|