X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTPS id 5698749 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:51:03 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,733,1336374000"; d="scan'208";a="674602657" Received: from smtp2.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.159.114]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 08 Aug 2012 06:50:27 -0700 Received: from [10.62.19.17] (ernestc-laptop.hq.netapp.com [10.62.19.17]) by smtp2.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id q78DoQUk007525 for ; Wed, 8 Aug 2012 06:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50226E87.9030305@att.net> Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 09:49:59 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@att.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Exhaust flanges References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit CozyGirrrl@aol.com wrote: > We're curious about 13B turbo exhaust flanges, is there any reason they > need to be one flange for both pipes or do you think it will seal up > fine with one per? > We're looking for small weight savings as well as easier to build up > each pipe. The other ends of the pipes are floating with a double flange > going into a collector. > > Chrissi & Randi > I'm doing one per. On one side, the runner is welded to the collector. The other side uses a muffler clamp. At some point before I fly I'm going to have to pull the engine to fix a slow oil leak at the front housing. I will pull the muffler at that time to inspect the flanges for leaks.