X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from pan.gwi.net ([207.5.128.165] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.5) with ESMTPS id 3036325 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.5.128.165; envelope-from=silvius@gwi.net Received: from yourlk4rlmsu41 (bb-216-195-174-159.gwi.net [216.195.174.159]) by pan.gwi.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id m6M0D6KY057849 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:13:10 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from silvius@gwi.net) Message-ID: <001501c8eb97$fff710f0$9faec3d8@yourlk4rlmsu41> From: "Michael Silvius" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: exhaust manifold Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:12:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8EB6E.15467C90" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8EB6E.15467C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ed: I am with you on that one 110%. Like they say, if you throw it up in the = air and it comes back down don't put it on your plane as it is to heavy. = I suspect that manifold just wont work at least for my application. I = only have about 3 inches from the side of the engine to the top/fwd most = support tube on my engine mount and as far as I can figure from the = photos of that manifold it looks to be just over 4 inches broad so = likely its a no go anyhow. Let me ask the collective experience here what is acceptable wall = thickness for the initial bends from the exhaust ports in 321 SS.? Is = .065 enough or is more advisable?. And what is a good source for those. = Looks like I can use some 2 inch 90 deg bends on a 6 inch radius. Michael ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 Michael, while a good idea, the only down side, I see is weight.=20 =20 Early on in my build of my RV-6A, I made an "improvement' here or = there - I mean they only added an couple ounces or half a pound, etc. = Well an ounce at a time, I was horrified to find out at the end, that = my plane end up 120 lbs over Van's recommended target weight. Now 44 = lbs of that were batteries, but even so weight is the "performance = Killer!" .=20 =20 I initially thought my good friend, Tracy Crook, was ..well, somewhat = fanatical about weight and some of the "extremes" he went to avoid and = ounce of weight - well, no longer. =20 =20 I have watch the performance of my aircraft improve as I took off = pound after pound. But, trust me it's a lot harder to take off (Hummm, = applies to weight on all objects apparently - thinking of my own body = {:>) than it is to avoid in the first place. =20 Sometimes, there are certainly other considerations (safety for one) = that override weight consideration - but, in my book, that is about the = only one (well, perhaps cost {:>)) =20 Ed =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8EB6E.15467C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ed:

I am with you on that one 110%. Like = they say, if=20 you throw it up in the air and it comes back down don't put it on your = plane as=20 it is to heavy.

I suspect that manifold just wont work = at least for=20 my application. I only have about 3 inches from the side of the engine = to the=20 top/fwd most support tube on my engine mount and as far = as I can=20 figure from the photos of that manifold it looks to be just over 4 = inches broad=20 so likely its a no go anyhow.

Let me ask the collective experience = here what is=20 acceptable wall thickness for the initial bends from the exhaust ports = in 321=20 SS.? Is .065 enough or is more advisable?. And what is a good = source for=20 those. Looks like I can use some 2 inch 90 deg bends on a 6 inch=20 radius.

Michael

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed=20 Anderson

Michael, = while a good=20 idea, the only down side, I see is weight. =

Early = on in my=20 build of my RV-6A, I made an =93improvement=92 here or there =96 I = mean they only=20 added an couple ounces or half a pound, etc. Well an ounce at a = time, I=20 was horrified to find out at the end, that my plane end up 120 = lbs over=20 Van=92s recommended target weight. Now 44 lbs of that were = batteries, but=20 even so weight is the =93performance Killer!=94 .=20

I initially = thought=20 my good friend, Tracy Crook, was =85.well, somewhat fanatical about = weight and=20 some of the =93extremes=94 he went to avoid and ounce of weight =96 = well, no=20 longer.

I have = watch the=20 performance of my aircraft improve as I took off pound after = pound. But,=20 trust me it=92s a lot harder to take off (Hummm, applies to weight on = all=20 objects apparently =96 thinking of my own body {:>) than it = is to avoid=20 in the first place.

Sometimes, = there are=20 certainly other considerations (safety for one) that override weight=20 consideration =96 but, in my book, that is about the only one (well, = perhaps=20 cost {:>))

Ed

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C8EB6E.15467C90--