Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 620888 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:26:20 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.71; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.11 201-253-122-130-111-20040605) with ESMTP id <20050125132549.BLTM2276.imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:25:49 -0500 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: oil analysis results (140k attachment) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 07:26:19 -0600 Message-ID: <02ca01c502e1$74c1c400$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_02CB_01C502AF.2A275400" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_02CB_01C502AF.2A275400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So how about this theory. Since the damage was caused by no oil, there was no oil to carry contamination back to the oil pan. All other oil was pumped overboard = before it even had a chance to reach the damaged areas (which, if it had, there would be no damaged areas). =20 =20 I think we have a winner. This does make sense, and would explain the glaring lack of evidence in the oil analysis. =20 =20 What may be much more telling, would be the oil you put in the = engine when you restarted before teardown. That oil would be pumped through all = the damaged areas and would carry contaminants away. Do you have any of that = oil available for analysis? How much $ is an analysis?=20 =20 It's still sitting in the drain pan, but I'm trying to remember if I = poured anything else in that pan other than oil. The test is $20.=20 =20 Thanks, Rusty =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_02CB_01C502AF.2A275400 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
So how about this theory.
     Since the damage was caused = by no oil,=20 there was no oil to carry contamination back to the oil pan. All other = oil was=20 pumped overboard before it even had a chance to reach the damaged areas = (which,=20 if it had, there would be no damaged areas).  
 
I think we=20 have a winner.  This does make sense, and would explain=20 the glaring lack of evidence in the oil=20 analysis.  
 
    What may be much more telling, would be the = oil you put=20 in the engine when you restarted before teardown. That oil would be = pumped=20 through all the damaged areas and would carry contaminants away. Do you = have any=20 of that oil available for analysis? How much $ is an analysis? 
 
It's still=20 sitting in the drain pan, but I'm trying to remember if I poured = anything=20 else in that pan other than oil.   The test is=20 $20. 
 
Thanks,
Rusty  
   
 
------=_NextPart_000_02CB_01C502AF.2A275400--