Return-Path: Received: from out014.verizon.net ([206.46.170.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 407438 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:39:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.46.170.46; envelope-from=finn.lassen@verizon.net Received: from verizon.net ([4.12.145.173]) by out014.verizon.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.06 201-253-122-130-106-20030910) with ESMTP id <20040912153926.INNI24490.out014.verizon.net@verizon.net> for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:39:26 -0500 Message-ID: <41446DAB.3010504@verizon.net> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:39:23 -0400 From: Finn Lassen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax; PROMO) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: high oil pressure and coolers References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using SMTP AUTH at out014.verizon.net from [4.12.145.173] at Sun, 12 Sep 2004 10:39:26 -0500 Bill Dube wrote: > > The "big book" says to use the stock oil Mazda cooler. It does > not appear to be overly heavy or bulky. It has been proven to work. > What would be the motivation to use something different? Maybe I've > missed some important point. Yes you have. The important point is that Rusty likes to do it the hard way :) I think that he firmly believes that "experimental" needs to be followed to the letter. Why benefit from other's results when you can do the experiment yourself :) Finn (too lazy to experiment, unless I can spend $100 to save $10)