Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.73; envelope-from=rusty@radrotary.com
From: "Russell Duffy" <rusty@radrotary.com>
To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: engine mount 4130 vs 304 SS
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:22:04 -0600
Message-ID: <001e01c75b7e$7e84fc80$6e01a8c0@rd>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
Thread-Index: Acdbb/Q1cmXZNmciSXe2yYqurNDCYQADRdQw
In-Reply-To: <list-1874516@logan.com>

Thanks for the abundance of comments.  My primary conclusion is that I'm
sorry I asked :-) =20

Seriously, I understand that 4130 is better, but SS can be used if build
sufficiently strong.  I had thought of aluminum, and since the engine =
mount
plate is already aluminum, it might not be so farfetched. =20

I'll keep looking at my options, but I'd like to use angle, rather than
tubing if possible.  It would be more convenient, since I can bolt it =
all
together, and only weld where/if I need to. I'll use the same engine =
mounts
I used on the Kolb, and I'm afraid they might have been part of my =
problems
before.  If so, I'll have to change them, so I'm scheming to leave that =
part
of the mount bolted on, for easy replacement if needed. Bottom line is =
that
this is a big advantage of using the 304 SS, since it's widely available =
in
angle form. =20

Thanks again,
Rusty
    =20