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