X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:00:24 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from [206.246.194.60] (HELO visi.net) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1978644 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:43:51 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=206.246.194.60; envelope-from=rpastusek@htii.com Received: from [68.34.115.162] (HELO DLHTPAX009) by visi.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 204646965 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:42:39 -0400 From: "Robert Pastusek" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: [LML] Amp connectors in firewall.... X-Original-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:42:54 -0400 X-Original-Message-ID: <03fb01c77bda$bc1e2e50$345a8af0$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_03FC_01C77BB9.350C8E50" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acd7fpk3DRQ9FK/hQGC5HehczP/hQAAWs+QA Content-Language: en-us This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_03FC_01C77BB9.350C8E50 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit John, I used the Amp connectors under the assumption that by the time a fire got that far back and high in the engine compartment you'd have lots more to worry about than some defective electrical circuits. I have no hard data to support this; just an opinion. Bob Pastusek From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John McMahon Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:44 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: [LML] Amp connectors in firewall.... Tom wrote... ..... Apparently some people are opting for the more expensive connectors listed in "Firewall Forward", even on non-pressurized planes, because they are more fire resistant than the Amp connectors. ...... I've heard this from several sources but without any specifics. I tried to find info on temp rating or some quantitative data but have not found any nor seen any. How about the rest of you? Did you use the Amp connectors in your firewall of opt for something else??? Inquiring minds want to know.... Thanks -- John McMahon Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved) ------=_NextPart_000_03FC_01C77BB9.350C8E50 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

John,

I used the Amp connectors under the assumption that by = the time a fire got that far back and high in the engine compartment you’d = have lots more to worry about than some defective electrical circuits. I have = no hard data to support this; just an opinion.

Bob Pastusek

From:= Lancair = Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of John McMahon
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 10:44 AM
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: [LML] Amp connectors in = firewall....

Tom wrote...

..... Apparently some people are opting for the more expensive = connectors listed in "Firewall Forward", even on non-pressurized planes, = because they are more fire resistant than the Amp connectors. = ......

I've heard this from several sources but without = any specifics. I tried to find info on temp rating or some = quantitative data but have not found any nor seen any. How about the rest of = you? Did you use the Amp connectors in your firewall of opt for something = else??? Inquiring minds want to know....
Thanks

--
John McMahon
Lancair Super ES, S/N 170, N9637M (Reserved)

------=_NextPart_000_03FC_01C77BB9.350C8E50--