|
|
Right: semi-monocoque. The 1st time I saw one in someone's hangar loft I thought it was an a/c seat. :-)
A 1-rotor should be light enough to do with some confidence If Rusty can get an engineer to give it a quick sanity check.
Charlie
wrjjrs@aol.com wrote:
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
|
|