Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.244]) by truman.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
          ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with SMTP id AAA18009
          for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:57:18 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980915215613.00702e68@olsusa.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 21:56:13 -0400
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: Welding
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Any welders out there?  I'm curious about the proper method to use when
welding together an assembly like an engine mount.  When looking at the
completed O-360 dynafocal mount supplied by the factory, it looks like all
of the parts were setup in the fixtures and all of the welds were then
completed en-masse at each junction.  I'm wondering if it's acceptable to
weld up subassemblies, then weld the fixtured parts to the welds that exist
on the subassemblies separately?

Case in point... if you look at the firewall mounting pads on the engine
mount they are each constructed from a steel washer with a piece of
thick-wall tube (which accepts the mounting bolt) welded to it along with
all the trusswork.  If all of the components were welded at the same time,
the areas on that little mounting pad which are covered by the ID of the
trusswork tubing would not have any welds.  I am thinking about welding up
the mounting pads first, then fitting the trusswork in and welding to the
pad and its welds... make sense?  Which way is right... which way is
stronger... what is the accepted practice?

  <Marv>