Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net
Message-ID: <4FA98C6B.7050803@att.net>
Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 17:13:15 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net>
Reply-To: echristley@att.net
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Muffler design
References: <list-5528343@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5528343@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Bill Bradburry wrote:
> Earnest,
> 
>  
> 
> I was wondering about the aerodynamic shape.  Do you plan to have it in
> the airstream?  

Not really.  It is situated behind the cowl exit.  The air will be choppy enough that I *might* get enough flow for it
to support it's own weight.  Looks slick more than anything else.

It seems that flat surfaces have been a problem in some
> other mufflers.  You may need to install some ribs or such to strengthen
> the flat surfaces if they prove to be a problem later??
> 
>  

Possibly.  It is built from .050 stainless ('cause I had it), and the theory is that the energy will bleed into the
chamber relatively slowly.  If I were to do it again, I'd put four 1/4" holes in the top of the cross inside the
chamber, diagonal to the cross tube.

I won't be trying for another start tonight.  I've decided that I don't like where I put my oxygen sensor on the side of
the exhaust tube clocked to be below 3 o'clock.  So, I'm going to move it which mean welding on an new bung.

At least I don't have to order one and wait for it to arrive.