Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #35820
From: <wrjjrs@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: engine mount 4130 vs 304 SS
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:23:54 -0500
To: <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Charlie,
 Almost always some kind of a monocoque built up structure. Also some forms of aluminum have a yield strength near that of steel. More likely the structure accomodates the materials shortcomings.
Bill Jepson
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: ceengland@bellsouth.net
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:36 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: engine mount 4130 vs 304 SS

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 
 
-- 
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ 
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ 

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster