X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <alventures@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.241.44] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13)
  with ESMTP id 3596203 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:49:36 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.44; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net
Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72])
          by fed1rmmtao102.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP
          id <20090425044902.LXPX6112.fed1rmmtao102.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:49:02 -0400
Received: from BigAl ([72.192.135.181])
	by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id jgp11b00B3uzsQg04gp1Gw; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 00:49:01 -0400
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=KAP0BmwkS8MA:10 a=B3uja9oFRokA:10
 a=Eqm2ezd7BLnYmYyDEHsA:9 a=O_mbKfq1VnU5vu8xhSsA:7
 a=48cuVX3Y37WOmzJ3KeCwiK5shA4A:4
X-CM-Score: 0.00
From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Exhaust system wall thickness
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:49:58 -0800
Message-ID: <2265FC42F58443A4B918BDFB211C1F3B@BigAl>
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, Build 10.0.6838
In-Reply-To: <list-3595626@logan.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579
Importance: Normal
Thread-Index: AcnFBtuC9yenRGxyQuSB1ER0wyYv2QAYps8g

with, and I found some notes about using SS handrail tubing,  
approximately 0.12" in wall thickness.  If one were to build matching  
muffler components to attach to those tubes, would 0.12" be  
sufficient thickness (presuming 304SS or similar)?  Thicker?  Thinner?

Chris;

You're building an airplane.  Weight matters.  .035 inconel is good.

Al G