X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 19:29:54 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-qa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.216.50] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 6693075 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:22:01 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.216.50; envelope-from=macinsd@gmail.com Received: by mail-qa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id cm18so4442328qab.23 for ; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:21:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.100.240 with SMTP id s103mr14670008qge.38.1390083686727; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:21:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.97.1.202 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:21:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 14:21:26 -0800 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Another take on air filtration From: Bill MacLeod X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c16ccc5b068b04f0461423 --001a11c16ccc5b068b04f0461423 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Adam, Thanks for that. It was a good informative post. Even though I'm (obviously) a proponent of well-filtered intake air, you make the point that in your operating environment just basically keeping the cats and dogs out of the throttle body is sufficient. That's a good silicon number and you change the oil frequently enough that it doesn't build up much. Noteworthy that you are spot on with the Universal Averages for your engine type--and most of those engines probably have some kind of air filter. Curious though, do you know why the silicon dropped by almost half over the last 100 hours? The extra 2 quarts of oil might explain it. Bill On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Paul Miller wrote: > Based on what I know can get through a large screen like that, I would > advocate using a larger cone of finer hardware mesh to deliver same resul= ts > with better protection against fod. My silicon numbers are same as your > levels(good i think). Pratts philosophy is no hardware in the engine > compartment that could get through the inlet screen. That screen could > suck my Buick in. > > Paul > > On 2014-01-18, at 14:25, "Adam Molny" wrote= : > > I expect this will be somewhat controversial but I chose to go with no > filter whatsoever =96 just coarse wire cloth with =BD=94 square openings. > > > > --001a11c16ccc5b068b04f0461423 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Adam,

Thanks for that.
It was= a good informative post. =A0Even though I'm (obviously) a proponent of= well-filtered intake air, you make the point that in your operating enviro= nment just basically keeping the cats and dogs out of the throttle body is = sufficient. =A0That's a good silicon number and you change the oil freq= uently enough that it doesn't build up much. =A0Noteworthy that you are= spot on with the Universal Averages for your engine type--and most of thos= e engines probably have some kind of air filter.

Curious though, do you know why the silicon dropped by = almost half over the last 100 hours?
The extra 2 quarts of oil mi= ght explain it.

Bill


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Paul M= iller <pjdmiller@gmail.com> wrote:
Based on what I know can get through a large screen = like that, I would advocate using a larger cone of finer hardware mesh to d= eliver same results with better protection against fod. My silicon numbers = are same as your levels(good i think). Pratts philosophy is no hardware in = the engine compartment that could get through the inlet screen. =A0That scr= een could suck my Buick in.<= br>
Paul

On 2014-01-18, at 14= :25, "Adam Molny" <Adam@ValidationPartners.com> wrote:

I expect this will be somewhat controversial but I chose to go with no filter whatsoever =96 just coarse wire cloth with =BD=94 square openings. <= u>

=A0


--001a11c16ccc5b068b04f0461423--