Return-Path: Received: from [65.54.169.127] (HELO hotmail.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 3054001 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 02:13:25 -0500 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:13:24 -0800 Received: from 67.24.245.95 by bay3-dav97.bay3.hotmail.com with DAV; Tue, 02 Mar 2004 07:13:24 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [67.24.245.95] X-Originating-Email: [lors01@msn.com] X-Sender: lors01@msn.com From: "Tracy Crook" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: muffler report Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 02:13:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MSN Explorer 7.02.0011.2700 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3FFFB.EF9A5910" Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Mar 2004 07:13:24.0797 (UTC) FILETIME=[DA35DED0:01C40025] ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3FFFB.EF9A5910 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now have about 4 hours on the Hushpower II muffler and it's still in one = piece so time for a preliminary update. 1. It weighs 9 lbs (4.5 less than Spintech). 2. It is definitely louder than the Spintech but not fatally so. Think = it would sound very good on an engine with exhaust port splitters (or a = Renesis : )The GIB (girl in backseat) says the Spintech sound level was = better. 3. The sound from HP II is more concentrated in a narrow spectrum which = makes it easier for ANR headsets to cancel but sound pressure readings i= n the cockpit are a good 5 - 8 db higher. 4. The engine has more power with this muffler. Just a guess right now = but I think this may be due to more backpressure rather than less (compar= ed to Spintech). 5. The aero drag on Spintech was costing me more than the 3 - 4 mph that= I had estimated. It was less aero drag that attracted me to the Hushpow= er II to begin with. =20 6. The airplane is frighteningly fast due to 4 & 5. Could not do an all= out top speed run due to airframe concerns. I backed off when airspeed = exceeded Vne by 10 mph. Inspection of the spintech internals (easy to see through the inlet) show= ed it was in perfect condition after ~ 300 hours. =20 ------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3FFFB.EF9A5910 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Now have about 4 hours on the Hushpower II = muffler and it's still in one piece so time for a preliminary update=

1. It weighs 9 lbs (4.5 less than Spintech).

= 2. It is definitely louder than the Spintech but not fatally so.&nb= sp; Think it would sound very good on an engine with exhaust port splitte= rs (or a Renesis : )The GIB (girl in backseat) says the Spint= ech sound level was better.

3. The sound from HP II&nbs= p;is more concentrated in a narrow spectrum which makes it easier for ANR= headsets to cancel but sound pressure readings in the cockpit are = a good 5 - 8 db higher.

4. The engine has more power with th= is muffler. Just a guess right now but I think this may b= e due to more backpressure rather than less (compared to Spintech).<= /P>

5. The aero drag on Spintech was costing me more than the 3 = - 4 mph that I had estimated. It was less aero drag that attracted = me to the Hushpower II to begin with.

6. The airplane= is frighteningly fast due to 4 & 5. Could not do an all o= ut top speed run due to airframe concerns. I backed off w= hen airspeed exceeded Vne by 10 mph.

Inspection of the spintech in= ternals (easy to see through the inlet) showed it was in perfect conditio= n after ~ 300 hours.

------=_NextPart_001_0001_01C3FFFB.EF9A5910--