Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To:  lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:10:57 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-6691716@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.109.114.74; envelope-from=geslnelson@sbcglobal.net
DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net;
  h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Rocket-MIMEInfo:X-Mailer:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
  b=aUF+wm/prKtihZ3u6+++OYjR9wLvJpKWw8OQPqYm4DL82wxmUjw/yXTHcqZ1Lt/DQ6IjXu0xWnFLGtlBuUhjqLq/7YIaJxcB7xAE0eW8GQO9uBxXijXxztubk5o6+oqDB4Cz7MYxRhId3aD1V2fd9IDzwy/0hqSFPdRfaMtt2D8=;
From: "geslnelson@sbcglobal.net" <geslnelson@sbcglobal.net>
Reply-To: "geslnelson@sbcglobal.net" <geslnelson@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [SPAM] Re: K&N air filters
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1621791829-2103998188-1389980428=:69937"

---1621791829-2103998188-1389980428=:69937
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Can we agree that a K&N filter is better than no filter at all?=A0 Of this,=
 I am sure because each time I have cleaned or replaced my K&N, it has been=
 noticeably dirty.=0A=0AOpinions usually vary -=A0and mine does=A0as to=A0t=
he use of K&N filters in our often-IFR-used airplanes.=A0 I use the K&N fil=
ter despite the reasons cited by previous writers on this topic.=A0 My use =
of=A0K&N filters is because=A0they pass the "suck" test while paper filters=
 fail this test=A0(I have not exhaustively tested=A0 automotive=A0paper fil=
ters).=0A=0AIn the=A0mid 1990's, I remember reading of a light aircraft tha=
t crashed because it had ingested its own wet=A0air filter; yes it was a ce=
llulose-type automotive filter.=A0 (Sorry, I don't have references to this =
article or event.)=A0 Still building my LNC2 at that time, I=A0elected to d=
o my own suck test -=A0and I recommend that you too do a suck test on your =
aircraft filters.=0A=0AConduct the=A0suck test=A0by cutting out a piece of =
old paper filter (automotive) and then wet part of it by dipping it in wate=
r.=A0 The other half should be kept dry.=A0 Now, suck on the dry part and y=
ou will find that breathing is easy.=A0=A0Next, suck on the wet part and yo=
u will find yourself turning blue for lack of oxygen.=0A=0ARepeat the suck =
test on a K&N filter and you will note that breathing is easy whether wet o=
r dry because the filter is oiled.=0A=0AI was satisfied that a wet paper fi=
lter could, indeed, cause power loss on an aircraft engine - especially bec=
ause our IFR aircraft must necessarily advance into clouds, rain, ice and s=
now without=A0the slightest power hesitation or interruption=A0- unlike rac=
ing automobiles that=A0wisely avoid rain, ice and snow.=0A=0AMy shoulders a=
re broad=A0and my loins are girded;=A0I can take the slings and arrows that=
 are sure to come.=A0 In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "Am I wrong?"=A0
---1621791829-2103998188-1389980428=:69937
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div>Can we agree tha=
t a K&amp;N filter is better than no filter at all?&nbsp; Of this, I am sur=
e because each time I have cleaned or replaced my K&amp;N, it has been noti=
ceably dirty.</div><div><br></div><div>Opinions usually vary -&nbsp;and min=
e does&nbsp;as to&nbsp;the use of K&amp;N filters in our often-IFR-used air=
planes.&nbsp; I use the K&amp;N filter despite the reasons cited by previou=
s writers on this topic.&nbsp; My use of&nbsp;K&amp;N filters is because&nb=
sp;they pass the "suck" test while paper filters fail this test&nbsp;(I hav=
e not exhaustively tested&nbsp; automotive&nbsp;paper filters).</div><div><=
br></div><div>In the&nbsp;mid 1990's, I remember reading of a light aircraf=
t that crashed because it had ingested its own wet&nbsp;air filter; yes it =
was a cellulose-type automotive filter.&nbsp; (Sorry, I don't have
 references to this article or event.)&nbsp; Still building my LNC2 at that=
 time, I&nbsp;elected to do my own suck test -&nbsp;and I recommend that yo=
u too do a suck test on your aircraft filters.</div><div><br></div><div>Con=
duct the&nbsp;suck test&nbsp;by cutting out a piece of old paper filter (au=
tomotive) and then wet part of it by dipping it in water.&nbsp; The other h=
alf should be kept dry.&nbsp; Now, suck on the dry part and you will find t=
hat breathing is easy.&nbsp;&nbsp;Next, suck on the wet part and you will f=
ind yourself turning blue for lack of oxygen.</div><div><br></div><div>Repe=
at the suck test on a K&amp;N filter and you will note that breathing is ea=
sy whether wet or dry because the filter is oiled.</div><div><br></div><div=
>I was satisfied that a wet paper filter could, indeed, cause power loss on=
 an aircraft engine - especially because our IFR aircraft must necessarily =
advance into clouds, rain, ice and snow without&nbsp;the slightest
 power hesitation or interruption&nbsp;- unlike racing automobiles that&nbs=
p;wisely avoid rain, ice and snow.</div><div><br></div><div>My shoulders ar=
e broad&nbsp;and my loins are girded;&nbsp;I can take the slings and arrows=
 that are sure to come.&nbsp; In the words of Bill O'Reilly, "Am I wrong?"&=
nbsp;</div></div></body></html>
---1621791829-2103998188-1389980428=:69937--