Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=129.116.87.171; envelope-from=mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Filters
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:09:28 -0600
Message-ID: <87DBA06C9A5CB84B80439BA09D86E69EC07EF8@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Filters
Thread-Index: AcUKNwHke+dmbFD9QFW89tUOFJv2hAABd0SA
From: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

I like Lynn Hanover's take on Fram... Friends don't let friends use
Fram. =20

Mark S.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Dale Rogers
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 3:26 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Filters

Hi All,

   Wasn't there a rather longish thread on oil filters a=20
couple of years ago?  Maybe it was somewhere else, but one=20
conclusion was that Fram's standard oil filters were rather=20
inferior: less filter surface, passing larger particles.

   When I get some time at home again, I'll look in my=20
archives to see if i can find my copies.

Dale R.
COZY MkIV #1254


> From: "John Slade" <sladerj@bellsouth.net>
> Date: 2005/02/03 Thu AM 11:49:38 EST
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Oil Filters
>=20
> MessageI guess the real question is what real benefit we get from this
extra
> size?
>=20
> I had the same question about the really really small K&N HP1008
recommended
> for the 3rd gen. It's even smaller than the HP1003. I pointed it out
to
> Tracy when he was done here. He felt it was just fine for the job.
> John (throwing out radio shack switches wherever I find them)
>=20


>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html