Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.66; envelope-from=ceengland@bellsouth.net
Message-ID: <45E5D9D2.2070805@bellsouth.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 13:36:50 -0600
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.2pre) Gecko/20070111 SeaMonkey/1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] engine mount 4130 vs 304 SS
References: <list-1873696@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1873696@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:
> Greetings,
>  
> As I ponder my choices for mounting the single rotor engine, I noticed 
> something that surprised me.  304 stainless is cheaper than 4130 steel.  
> One thing that's always bothered me about steel tube type construction 
> is the concern for rusting inside the tubes, so stainless is appealing.  
> There must be a catch here. 
>  
> Is there a good reason I should use 4130 instead of 304?  Either will 
> likely be sized much larger than needed, since I don't have the means to 
> do any proper analysis of the strength. 
>  
> Thanks,
> Rusty (Autoflight drive supposed to be shipping next week)
> 
Well, after wading through all the replies, everyone seems to be 
ignoring the obvious answer: aluminum. :-)

Sounds heretical, but there are AL mounts that have been flying for 
decades on certified a/c. IIRC, some of the bed mounts for Franklins are AL.

Charlie