X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 986191 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:29:15 -0500 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.68.10.87; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 Feb 2006 10:28:31 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.02,117,1139212800"; d="scan'208"; a="255692313:sNHT30249832" Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k1FISTKT026842 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:28:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0500 Received: from [64.102.38.131] ([64.102.38.131]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0500 Message-ID: <43F372CD.3030108@nc.rr.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 13:28:29 -0500 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: Airfilters References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Feb 2006 18:28:29.0191 (UTC) FILETIME=[9E112970:01C6325D] Tracy Crook wrote: > If we were talking about an automotive application I agree that it > would be folly to run sans-airfilter. And I qualify my non > filtered operation with the proviso that you must use care when > taxiing under certain conditions. The air is a lot cleaner as soon > as you slip the surly bonds. Flying or taxiing through a sand storm > would of course be disastrous without an air filter. > > Only one sample but my first engine (a well used 88 2nd gen) showed > no measurable wear (compared to when first installed) to rotor > grooves, rotor housings, side housings, or side seals after 856 flight > hours. The apex seals had a maximum of .012" of wear measured at > height of seal. This is the least wear I have seen when disassembling > a used engine. I've torn down about 12 so far, all used on cars > except for mine, not a big sample. > > Tracy That's good data, Tracy, and Bill presents a good argument for not needing a filter, but isn't it akin to unprotected promiscous sex. You get away with it...most of the time. I would balance the argument against the question, "How much speed will you lose on the top end from a 1" drop in MP?" Possibly, some of the lost speed will be regained from less cooling drag from not producing as much power, but those numbers are most likely dropping off into the pitifully insignificant. At the least, consider a centrifugal filter, which should be relatively easy to fit in most installations. Bring in a 4" duct with a large sweeping curve. Pick up the intake air on the inside of the curve with a 3" duct. Let the rest blow across the coils or into the alternater. Heavier than air stuff (ie., sand particles) get thrown to the outside. These are just conceptual numbers. An effective cleaner would need a little bit more analysis. I don't think it cleans as well as a paper filter, but it doesn't produce nearly as much of a restriction and it will clean out the big junk that is likely to chip an apex seal. -- ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |