Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc12.comcast.net ([204.127.202.56] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2) with ESMTP id 377884 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:00:43 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.202.56; envelope-from=kenpowell@comcast.net Received: from 204.127.205.148 ([204.127.205.148]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc12) with SMTP id <2004082517001301200pbqa9e>; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:13 +0000 Received: from [68.51.44.162] by 204.127.205.148; Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:13 +0000 From: kenpowell@comcast.net To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RV-4 Motor Mount and Cowl for 13B Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 17:00:13 +0000 Message-Id: <082520041700.8360.412CC59D0004FBC3000020A8220073544604040A99019F020A05@comcast.net> X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Jul 16 2004) X-Authenticated-Sender: a2VucG93ZWxsQGNvbWNhc3QubmV0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_8360_1093453213_0" --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_8360_1093453213_0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Earnest, I used 3/4" 0.049 tubing because it is easy to weld. I hate to say this here after getting beat up a couple of weeks ago, but Paul Lamar and Bill Freeman both 'blessed' it as well as one other engineer that might not want to be mentioned. Here is an excerpt on the weight: > The original conical mount from Van's weighed 11 lb 6 oz. The > new mount > weighs 13 lb 3 oz, or 1 lb 12 oz more. Lot's of extra .75" tubing > there! > The engine adapter mounts weighed a total of 5 lb 12 oz. The > lower mount > weighed 2 lb 12 oz, the right upper weighed 1 lb 11 oz and the upper > left mount weighed 1 lb 12 oz. The three adapter mounts were > weighed together as well as individually to eliminate rounding > errors. Note that the upper adapter mounts (on both sides) tie the > front and rear of the engine together to eliminate extra loads on > the tension bolts. Ken Powell -------------- Original message -------------- > Ken, > > Your motor mount looks almost identical to what I've > worked out for my Delta, except that mine would be > much shorter so that the engine is closer to the > firewall. > > What size tubing did you use, and do you have any > analysis numbers for it? --NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_8360_1093453213_0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi Earnest,

I used 3/4" 0.049 tubing because it is easy to weld.  I hate to say this here after getting beat up a couple of weeks ago, but Paul Lamar and Bill Freeman both 'blessed' it as well as one other engineer that might not want to be mentioned.

Here is an excerpt on the weight:


>     The original conical mount from Van's weighed 11 lb 6 oz.  The
>     new mount
> weighs 13 lb 3 oz, or 1 lb 12 oz more.  Lot's of extra .75" tubing
> there!
>     The engine adapter mounts weighed a total of 5 lb 12 oz.  The
>     lower mount
> weighed 2 lb 12 oz, the right upper weighed 1 lb 11 oz and the upper
> left mount weighed 1 lb 12 oz.  The three adapter mounts were
> weighed together as well as individually to eliminate rounding
> errors.  Note that the upper adapter mounts (on both sides) tie the
> front and rear of the engine together to eliminate extra loads on
> the tension bolts.

Ken Powell

-------------- Original message --------------

> Ken,
>
> Your motor mount looks almost identical to what I've
> worked out for my Delta, except that mine would be
> much shorter so that the engine is closer to the
> firewall.
>
> What size tubing did you use, and do you have any
> analysis numbers for it?
--NextPart_Webmail_9m3u9jl4l_8360_1093453213_0--