Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.52; envelope-from=ceengland7@gmail.com
Message-ID: <5292A298.9030402@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:06:32 -0600
From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Mount bottom view
References: <list-6612579@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-6612579@logan.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------000904040900080108030500"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------000904040900080108030500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The mount will leave virtually the entire cowl space open (to the point 
of: no place to hang heat exchangers up front :-) ). If you decide to 
make a big change like that, give me a shout off-line & I'll point out a 
few more things that could make it better the next time around.

Progress is slow, as usual. Life continues to get in the way. Current 
project is the oil cooler mount. I'd use Dale's, but I want to avoid the 
remote mount with its extra weight & oil lines. I'm pretty sure I've 
found a way to use the stock tower & avoid any bumps in the cowl. I'll 
post pics if it works out.

Charlie


On 11/24/2013 6:51 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:
> Thanks Charlie. How's the project progressing? I'm still thinking 
> about a turbo and relocating the radiators for a cleaner airflow.
>
> Bobby. 190 hrs
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "Charlie England" <ceengland7@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2013 12:35 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:
>>> Charlie
>>>
>>> Do you have any pictures of your engine mount you can share? Particularly the lower rear attachments to the engine block.  I remember you had a unique solution but I don't recall the details.
>>>
>>> Bobby Hughes
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> --
>>> Homepage:http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>> Archive and UnSub:http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>> Bottom view below. Note that the square tube that connects the two 
>> 'tripods' on the firewall side would have been more functional if it 
>> had been welded between the two adapters, with the sleeves welded to 
>> the two 'tripods' on the firewall side. The reason is that the square 
>> tube would have provided a hard connection between the two adapters, 
>> removing any risk of 'racking' load on the bolts/studs attaching them 
>> to the engine. That's how I'd have built it if I'd not been too dense 
>> to picture what Monty Roberts was trying to describe while I was 
>> designing & building the mount.
>>
>> The adapters are *way* overbuilt; most of the parts could have been 
>> made from .062 instead of .125 4130.
>>
>> <bottom view small.jpg>


--------------000904040900080108030500
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">The mount will leave virtually the
      entire cowl space open (to the point of: no place to hang heat
      exchangers up front :-) ). If you decide to make a big change like
      that, give me a shout off-line &amp; I'll point out a few more
      things that could make it better the next time around.<br>
      <br>
      Progress is slow, as usual. Life continues to get in the way.
      Current project is the oil cooler mount. I'd use Dale's, but I
      want to avoid the remote mount with its extra weight &amp; oil
      lines. I'm pretty sure I've found a way to use the stock tower
      &amp; avoid any bumps in the cowl. I'll post pics if it works out.<br>
      <br>
      Charlie<br>
      <br>
      <br>
      On 11/24/2013 6:51 PM, Bobby J. Hughes wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote cite="mid:list-6612579@logan.com" type="cite">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div>Thanks Charlie. How's the project progressing? I'm still
        thinking about a turbo and relocating the radiators for a
        cleaner airflow. </div>
      <div><br>
      </div>
      <div>Bobby. 190 hrs <br>
        <br>
        Sent from my iPad</div>
      <div><br>
        On Nov 24, 2013, at 6:23 PM, "Charlie England" &lt;<a
          moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:ceengland7@gmail.com">ceengland7@gmail.com</a>&gt;
        wrote:<br>
        <br>
      </div>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <div>
          <meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
            http-equiv="Content-Type">
          <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/24/2013 12:35 PM, Bobby J.
            Hughes wrote:<br>
          </div>
          <blockquote cite="mid:list-6612408@logan.com" type="cite">
            <pre wrap="">Charlie

Do you have any pictures of your engine mount you can share? Particularly the lower rear attachments to the engine block.  I remember you had a unique solution but I don't recall the details. 

Bobby Hughes 


Sent from my iPad
--
Homepage:  <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.flyrotary.com/">http://www.flyrotary.com/</a>
Archive and UnSub:   <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html">http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html</a>
</pre>
          </blockquote>
          Bottom view below. Note that the square tube that connects the
          two 'tripods' on the firewall side would have been more
          functional if it had been welded between the two adapters,
          with the sleeves welded to the two 'tripods' on the firewall
          side. The reason is that the square tube would have provided a
          hard connection between the two adapters, removing any risk of
          'racking' load on the bolts/studs attaching them to the
          engine. That's how I'd have built it if I'd not been too dense
          to picture what Monty Roberts was trying to describe while I
          was designing &amp; building the mount.<br>
          <br>
          The adapters are *way* overbuilt; most of the parts could have
          been made from .062 instead of .125 4130.<br>
          <br>
          &lt;bottom view small.jpg&gt;<br>
        </div>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------000904040900080108030500--