Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000501c66d87$1bb001d0$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1087797@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: new hangar
Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 21:24:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sounds like the right formula, George - will wait for your project's outcome 
before I try cones.  Yes, I did find some cone  inserts at $60.00 USD each. 
I would need 4 for my two tubes - hummm makes one tube sound better all the 
time.

Ed

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "george lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 7:48 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: new hangar


>
>> Just the shells, TJ, the 1/8" thick SS washers are history.  I have
>> concluded that no reasonable thickness of metal will stand up to the
> exhaust
>> pulse for long if it is perpendicular to the shock wave.  I believe that
> if
>> I could shape them into cones where by the shock wave would hit the side
> of
>> the cone  at an oblique angle  would probably survive - now all I have to
> do
>> is find some {:>).
>>
>> Ed
>
> Ed,
> There plenty of SS cones available in 1.6mm, I'm using them in my exhaust
> which is a joint venture design with Bill Jepson - the idea is to redirect
> the shock waves but not restrict the exhaust, as you have alluded to.
> George ( down under)
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>