OK, I'm late in getting this posting out. The April issue of FWW
compared 1-1/2 HP portable dust collectors, including the Penn State
DC2V2. The reviewer, Michael Standish, tested them by measuring the
static pressure increase as he increased the constriction on the air
flow to simulate varying loads on the DC. He fitted the machines with a
Wynn cartridge filter but claimed that there was little difference in
performance between it and a cloth bag. The results were displayed as
plots of static pressure in in. of water vs. air flow in cfm.
His plots were essentially linear. The results are "interesting."
StaticPressure FWW Penn State
1.5" 800 cfm 1200 cfm
4" 650 cfm 1050 cfm
8" 400 cfm* 600 cfm
In all three cases Penn State's flow rates are about 50% greater than
Penn State calls the DC2V2 a "1250 cfm machine great for up to a
medium-size shop." Standish puts it in the category of "machines [that]
fall too quickly below the 800 cfm threshold for effective dust
Standish found the Delta 50-760 to be the best performing of the group,
way superior to the Penn State.
I always thought of Penn State as one of the most conservative DC
manufacturers when it came to quoting performance, so I wonder what's
up with this.
BTW, I have a smaller Penn State unit and am pleased with its
Vince Heuring To email, remove the Vince.