X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:23:17 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.182] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.11) with ESMTPS id 3417985 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Jan 2009 06:46:22 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.182; envelope-from=fredmoreno@optusnet.com.au Received: from Razzle ([202.139.5.198]) (authenticated sender fredmoreno) by mail01.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n09BjOo2020650 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2009 22:45:36 +1100 From: "Fred Moreno" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mail" Subject: [LML] Re: No more exhaust streaks! X-Original-Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 20:45:21 +0900 X-Original-Message-ID: <3AF4BC7648EA4FD89526582560965165@Razzle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01C9729B.38F6B740" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Thread-Index: AclySyEfn0Tx04e9SUakXaYFpH2KXwABFpMg Importance: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C9729B.38F6B740 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So far so good, but only limited hours so far. If you have the thin stainless steel sheet and means to fabricate it, use it instead just to = be sure of good longevity since no long term results are available.=20 =20 Fred =20 -----Original Message----- From: Kent [mailto:kent@tulsaconnect.com]=20 Sent: Friday, 9 January 2009 9:08 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [LML] FW: [LML] Re: No more exhaust streaks! =20 =20 Good thinking.. but did it work? =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Fred Moreno=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:22 PM Subject: [LML] FW: [LML] Re: No more exhaust streaks! =20 =20 Very interesting. Just curious to why you didn't use stainless steel instead of aluminum. John Herminghaus Good question John. There were two reasons.=20 =20 1) Remember I was on Revision 7b, and at point I put a premium on = quick and easy fabrication to test ideas. Much trial and error. 2) Most important, there was a bit of aluminum in the hangar, but no stainless. If the aluminum does not last well, I will head to the = stainless fabricator in town for revision 7c.=20 =20 Fred =20 ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C9729B.38F6B740 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

So far so good, but only = limited hours so far.   If you have the thin stainless steel sheet and = means to fabricate it, use it instead just to be sure of good longevity since no = long term results are available.

 

Fred

 

-----Origi= nal Message-----
From: Kent [mailto:kent@tulsaconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2009 9:08 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: [LML] FW: = [LML] Re: No more exhaust streaks!

 

 

Good  = thinking..

but did it = work?

 

 

----- Original Message ----- =

From: Fred Moreno

Sent: Tuesday, = January 06, 2009 = 8:22 PM

Subject: [LML] FW: [LML] Re: No more exhaust = streaks!

 

 

Very interesting.  Just curious to why =
you didn't use stainless steel instead of aluminum.









John Herminghaus









Good =
question John.  There were two reasons. =

 
1)     =
Remember I was on Revision 7b, and at point I put a =
premium on quick and easy fabrication to test ideas.  Much trial =
and error.
2)     =
Most important, there was a bit of aluminum in the =
hangar, but no stainless.  If the aluminum does not last well, I =
will head to the stainless fabricator in town for revision 7c. =

 
Fred=

 

------=_NextPart_000_002C_01C9729B.38F6B740--