X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:50:22 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.213] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with SMTP id 5358424 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 20:25:03 -0500 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.94.237.213; envelope-from=browncc1@verizon.net Received: from [66.94.237.199] by nm12.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2012 01:24:29 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.96] by tm10.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2012 01:24:29 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Jan 2012 01:24:29 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 234674.20285.bm@omp1001.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 82645 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2012 01:24:28 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: z.plfAMVM1m8w._aRzFtbPmUwBdVvUsnESsofy4.3NZVurp x1VyCnPvViOVmSXkPfgvwTekumm9Zd0V3jDILUMHHE03mMT5o6YT8Rj6iX.g pNzIYUS_HFe8DbTLQUR5Q894Kg7rnnz4tuMBsecOB4ZwE0qYZ5om2XQpr7O1 Lot.izCeDqM3yxHSxED39FzlvhwhNdymUm1_dUxM1L.j0d3sior3mbzqOfKL CAWet3OscerR2wfnsd5HvOePaMyUtOjq0niXgf8x6zkQI4vfbUcWaJ7DsOS8 45lQ5ys9FzwyBb4U2HdmdEnbhxbcA5zpe1F7Q7.6mWTU03YoD7RT.00E90nX zw1zlHOrYEisOtsQzRIcXvGheruWMzddG2kstTGWp.dNG3D1C4hSBa6SjBcq gYKg8fwzVHhy5ZFlpxUeMLNWErANuOMNx55tD5AZyIQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: F49l9g6swBC0R9n8vJIbm7Tf3P8Xlmia8rHIwTlO__Ml Received: from new-host-3.home (browncc1@72.64.81.165 with plain) by smtp101.vzn.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 20 Jan 2012 17:24:28 -0800 PST From: Charles Brown Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-909517085 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Steam Gauge Backup X-Original-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:24:27 -0600 In-Reply-To: X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: X-Original-Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) --Apple-Mail-1-909517085 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii My experience with two wet vac pumps on a C-310 is that they never = failed. But they're rather large and heavy? as I recall. On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:36 PM, thomas williams wrote: a wet vacuum pump is VERY reliable compared to the dry pumps.=20 --Apple-Mail-1-909517085 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

My experience with two wet vac pumps on a C-310 is that they never failed. But they're rather large and heavy? as I recall.

On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:36 PM, thomas williams wrote:

a wet vacuum pump is VERY reliable compared to the dry pumps.

--Apple-Mail-1-909517085--