Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=201.225.225.168; envelope-from=rijakits@cwpanama.net
Message-ID: <03dc01c759cf$10dd0110$a45ee0c9@usuario5ebe209>
From: "Thomas y Reina Jakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1863843@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Primary regulator, and motor mount plate
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:53:45 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Finn,

it is not the loads that the engine was built for, but the ones we give it 
to deal with it was NOT designed for...

As Lynn mentioned in the previous email, it seems you (we) are save to some 
rather "ridiculous" (for our use) hp/torque levels, so I rest my case! :))

Thomas


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Finn Lassen" <finn.lassen@verizon.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Primary regulator, and motor mount plate


> Do the calculations on how many pounds of pressure are trying to force the 
> engine apart during combustion and I think you'll feel better about the 
> small loads from the prop.
>
> Finn
>
> Thomas y Reina Jakits wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>  Sandwich plate may work (even well), BUT it is not the cleanest 
>> solution, more likely the simplest.
>> This engine was never built to be a load carrying member of the drive 
>> train (like some motorcycle or racing engines....).
>> I don't even like the Mistral Engines solution ( and they probably did a 
>> LOT of homework on this) - the backplate, altough the loadpath is 
>> easier - straight through the engineblock, no turning forces 90º into the 
>> sandwichplate and back 90º into the framemount.
>> Personally I would keep any proploads (push/pull/torque) off the engine.
>> A triangulated frame that attaches at the PSRU would be better - 
>> Prop-Trans-Mount-Frame -
>> The engine hangs on the other side and provides the power, nothing else.
>> As long as you run direct-drive the torque will never be more than the 
>> engine produces, but as soon as you ad rpm-reduction you introduce more 
>> torque coming back into the engine-housing....
>>  Am I wrong somewhere...??
>>  Thomas J.
>>
>>     ----- Original Message -----
>>     *From:* George Lendich <mailto:lendich@optusnet.com.au>
>>     *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft <mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>>     *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2007 4:48 PM
>>     *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Primary regulator, and motor mount plate
>>
>>
>>
>>         Greetings,
>>          The Dominator gyro is on order, to arrive around the first
>>         part of April (I hope).  The gear drive is still on order from
>>         Autoflight, and hopefully, will be shipping soon.  All I can
>>         do in the mean time is get the engine as ready as possible,
>>         which mostly means making a new engine mount plate of some type. 
>> Question one- If I were to make a sandwiched plate, similar to
>>         what CCI does (did ?) with their mounts, how thick would it
>>         need to be for a single rotor?  The CCI plate was 1/2" thick
>>         for the two rotor, and I made my first single rotor mount that
>>         thick as well.  Since I'd like to reduce some weight, I'm
>>         wondering what I can cut this down to.  I'm guessing 3/8" at
>>         least, and maybe 1/4".   Any suggestions?
>>          Second question, how much oil bypasses the primary regulator
>>         (in the front cover) under normal operation?  Does any bypass
>>         at all?  I know it's there primarily to prevent overpressure
>>         of the oil cooler in case the lines get blocked, but I wonder
>>         if it's actually needed for normal operation.  In other words,
>>         can I plug up the primary regulator, and be OK as long
>>         as nothing in the oil lines gets plugged up?  Thanks,
>>         Rusty (waiting for Ed to try his favorite brazing rods on the
>>         board)
>>          Rusty,
>>         I like the mount plate for simplicity - however it does move,
>>         and move enough to get leaks. Since this is a perceived
>>         problem with the 2 rotor, I would leave it 1/2" for the one
>>         rotor, with the required internal holes.
>>         Just my opinion Matey!
>>         George ( down under)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
>