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 3040392 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:14:13 -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 m6OFDSks027170 for ; Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:13:33 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from silvius@gwi.net) Message-ID: <001601c8eda8$1b59ae90$9faec3d8@yourlk4rlmsu41> From: "Michael Silvius" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: exhaust building Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:12:41 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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. >