Return-Path: Received: from [65.33.164.105] (account marv@lancaironline.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 4.2) with HTTP id 381836 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:27:12 -0400 From: "Marvin Kaye" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: LOP vs ROP Baffle -Cooling - Fuel flow To: lml X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser Interface v.4.2 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 23:27:12 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Posted for "George Braly" : Scott, The poor baffling is not just the IV-P series. The Columbia certified airplane is one of the worst baffled normally aspirated airplanes around. The fuel set up is also poorly done on that certified airplane & engine. By contrast, the Cirrus is pretty well done with a couple of glaring errors. If you want to see a well done baffling job, then take a look under the cowl at the very last year's production of the P-210 (not the earlier airplanes). If you know what you are looking for, you can spend an hour and still keep seeing nice surprises at how well it was done. If you don't know what you are looking for, you will just say "ho hum" and put the cowl back on in about 10 minutes. Somebody that did that one actually understood how to do that and why. I had to make a dozen test flights during the baffle tweaking process on the IV-P. If I could start from scratch, I could do a still better job on that installation. But it takes lots of time and personal attention away from a lot of other projects. We probably did not charge for more than half of the shop time and effort that went into the one airplane. Of course, we could do it a second time in half that time or less... but it still takes lots of time away from a lot of other pressing projects. Regards, George