X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTP id 3040837 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:59:03 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.122; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20080724195824.RNFH9085.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@computername> for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:58:24 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: exhaust building Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:58:32 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5512 Thread-index: Acjtn+4VpWMn26dWQi+Pyy5Ah1CblgAJudZA Message-Id: <20080724195824.RNFH9085.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@computername> Mike, any of it will work in the right combination of alloy and thickness - even mild steel (although I wouldn't think of using it in an aircraft). I used 304 SS PIPE (0.11 thick wall) which has close to 500 hours over 10 years. It work just fine - easier to weld bungs and such to it than the thinner wall tubing. However, the only down side is weight in my opinion. If cost were no object Iconel tubing would probably be idea, but 0.065 321 SS would probably be my next choice. I know a lot have used thinner wall tubing - but if you have ever seen the red/yellow - almost white hot glow of a rotary exhaust header with a rotary engine at full boogy, you will know why you don't want to skimp in that area (my opinion of course). Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Michael Silvius Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 12:13 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft 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" > 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 __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com