X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [199.185.220.220] (HELO priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.3) with ESMTP id 867881 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 04:34:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=199.185.220.220; envelope-from=haywire@telus.net Received: from Endurance ([154.20.245.217]) by priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.04 201-2131-118-104-20050224) with SMTP id <20051208093336.CBIY749.priv-edtnes57.telusplanet.net@Endurance> for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:33:36 -0700 From: "Todd Bartrim" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Brake Fire Photo Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:33:06 -0800 Message-ID: <048901c5fbda$657a3fc0$0101a8c0@Endurance> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: One question on the ATF. What brand did you use? Was it synthetic? Here in Austin, Texas we've seen +115*, but never -15*. Hi Mark; No it wasn't synthetic but I did consider it as the viscosity will change less with temperature fluctuations. However I decided that one of the big advantages to ATF was that it was cheap and easy to get and felt that synthetic would diminish that advantage somewhat. So when the viscosity proved to be unsuitable for our winter temps, I figured if I was going to pay more, I might as well stop experimenting and just use DOT5 as there really was no advantage to continue pissing around with ATF. It may be more suitable in your environment, but this was my experience. Hope this helps Todd