|
|
|
|
|
Richard Riley wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 16:00:33 GMT, Orval Fairbairn
> <orfairbairn@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :
> :It could have had a jug go bad for any of a number of reasons --
> :sometimes the crack for no apparent reason. Other times it is due to
> :poor baffling or other mistreatment.
>
> And that major overhaul may have used cylinders that were on their
> (you fill in the number) run. They might have met the overhaul spec
> but had 4000+ hours already.
Or even a typo (wich Is neva does) such that there might have been another
digit as in STOH 777 or 977 or who knows what!
John
|
|
|
|
Re: SMOH=487, STOH=77???
