Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.73] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 612019 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:12:50 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.73; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050118201221.BNZR2518.imf25aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:12:21 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Switching to Evans NPG+ Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:12:28 -0600 Message-ID: <000001c4fd9a$089acc50$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FD67.BE005C50" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FD67.BE005C50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It works out that a volume of NPG+ is only 17% less efficient than the = same volume of 50/50. Once hot, the vescosity is not an issue, being only slightly more viscous than water (no system change usually necessary). From the reports I've seen, it has to be true that there isn't a huge difference in cooling performance. Ken Welter has already stated that = he's changed back and forth a couple time, and didn't see any real diff in = temps. Loads of folks with RX-7's use it, and also don't report any dire consequences. At the same time, I'm not sure there are global cooling improvements to be made either. =20 =20 I believe the benefit of being able to run pressure less, coupled with higher boiling point makes it worth trying for me. Now if I can just = find some. Have you found any good online sources? Most of my normal places don't carry it. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (engine repair status- one week down, and going nowhere fast) ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FD67.BE005C50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

It works out that a volume of NPG+ is only 17% less = efficient=20 than the same volume of 50/50.  Once hot, the vescosity is not an = issue,=20 being only slightly more viscous than water (no system change usually=20 necessary).

From the = reports I've=20 seen, it has to be true that there isn't a huge difference in = cooling=20 performance.  Ken Welter has already stated that he's changed back = and=20 forth a couple time, and didn't see any real diff in temps.  Loads = of folks=20 with RX-7's use it, and also don't report any dire = consequences.  At=20 the same time, I'm not sure there are global cooling improvements to be = made=20 either. 
 
I = believe the benefit of=20 being able to run pressure less, coupled with higher boiling point makes = it=20 worth trying for me.  Now if I can just find some.  Have = you=20 found any good online sources?  Most of my normal places don't = carry=20 it. 
 
Cheers,
Rusty (engine repair status- one = week down,=20 and going nowhere fast)

 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C4FD67.BE005C50--