Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 610043 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:28:35 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Jan 2005 10:28:06 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from echristl-linux.cisco.com (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j0HFS3W0013417 for ; Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine Mount From: Ernest Christley To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1105975682.12865.71.camel@echristl-linux.cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:28:03 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 10:18, Dale Rogers wrote: > Those of you who have built your own mounts: > > What size(s) and thickness of tubing did you use? > > Dale R. > COZY MkIV #1254 > Mostly 1/2x.049. Some pieces of 3/4x.065. Running the numbers for a static analysis shows this to be way over-engineered, but... 1) Why trust a simple static analysis with no more tube than we'll be using? 2) By necessity, some of the tubes will be loaded in compression and vibrating. This makes any damage caused by a dropped tool critical and likely to lead very quickly to buckling.