X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mta11.charter.net ([216.33.127.80] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3596609 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:31:41 -0400 Received-SPF: neutral receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.33.127.80; envelope-from=rotary@cmowens.com Received: from imp10 ([10.20.200.10]) by mta11.charter.net (InterMail vM.7.09.01.00 201-2219-108-20080618) with ESMTP id <20090425183101.WTYZ22327.mta11.charter.net@imp10> for ; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:31:01 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([24.241.157.64]) by imp10 with charter.net id juWw1b0091Pewrc05uWwen; Sat, 25 Apr 2009 14:31:01 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8EFB95BE-C1B0-4195-9853-45572787A1DC@cmowens.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Christopher Owens Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Exhaust system wall thickness Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 13:32:04 -0500 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.753.1) Hi Al, I agree, but don't have much experience with these kinds of metal and how much they weigh. I suspected that if I asked about the high side, someone would reply that I didn't need that much and make a good recommendation. I do greatly appreciate the insight :-) Best regards, Chris On Apr 25, 2009, at 12:49 AM, Al Gietzen wrote: > 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 > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/ > flyrotary/List.html