X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop-Diagnostic: \eX-PolluStop-Score: 0.00\eX-PolluStop: Scanned with Niversoft PolluStop 2.1 RC1, http://www.niversoft.com/pollustop Return-Path: Received: from imo-d23.mx.aol.com ([205.188.139.137] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c4) with ESMTP id 865805 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:39:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.139.137; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-d23.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38.7.) id q.d5.25f29bac (3980) for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:38:47 -0400 (EDT) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 01:38:47 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: RV10 Cowl To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1113284327" X-Mailer: 9.0 SE for Windows sub 5012 -------------------------------1113284327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 4/11/2005 8:02:59 PM Pacific Standard Time, hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes: > Since I'm playing around with making my own engine mount, I looked > carefully at the engine mount in your CAD drawing. I have a couple of > questions. > > 1) Did you do a finite element analysis on the mount you have drawn? > > 2) I don't see anything aside from the one C channel supporting the engine. > I don't understand how this would be able to react the loads. > The above quoted from Bill Dube's reply to Jarrett Bill, I wanted to kick in a little design insight here. The mount style Jarrett has drawn has come to be known on the other list as the "P-51" style mount. I commented to Paul Lamar that the load path of this mount looked exactly like the P-51 load path, except the P-51 original bed mount was a monoque structure. The Thunder Mustang originally used a built-up mount like the "big" P-51. Later when producing the kits they switched to the tube style mount. Except for the obvious size difference the mounts could be identical. The Thunder Mustang used the Falconer V-12 engine which is a heavy one and 700 Hp as well. It has held up well at Reno. A look at the Thunder Mustang site is worth it. You can see both styles of mount, very interesting.They are still looking for a buyer for the tooling to start building the kits again. Not too many of us can afford a 1/2 mil plane for 1 passenger and not much luggage! Bill Jepson -------------------------------1113284327 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 4/11/2005 8:02:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,=20 hjjohnson@sasktel.net writes:
<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>> Since I'm playing around with making my own eng= ine=20 mount, I looked
> carefully at the engine mount in your CAD drawing= . I=20 have a couple of
> questions.
>
> 1) Did you do a fini= te=20 element analysis on the mount you have drawn?
>
> 2) I don't=20= see=20 anything aside from the one C channel supporting the engine.
> I do= n't=20 understand how this would be able to react the=20 loads.
>
The above quoted from Bill Dube's reply to Jarrett
Bill, I wanted to kick in a little design insight here. The mount style= =20 Jarrett has drawn has come to be known on the other list as the "P-51" style= =20 mount. I commented to Paul Lamar that the load path of this mount looked exa= ctly=20 like the P-51 load path, except the P-51 original bed mount was a monoque=20 structure. The Thunder Mustang originally used a built-up mount like the "bi= g"=20 P-51. Later when producing the kits they switched to the tube style mount.=20 Except for the obvious size difference the mounts could be identical. The=20 Thunder Mustang used the Falconer V-12 engine which is a heavy one and 700 H= p as=20 well. It has held up well at Reno. A look at the Thunder Mustang site is wor= th=20 it. You can see both styles of mount, very interesting.They are still lookin= g=20 for a buyer for the tooling to start building the kits again. Not too many o= f us=20 can afford a 1/2 mil plane for 1 passenger and not much luggage!
Bill Jepson
-------------------------------1113284327--