X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4174078 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:44:25 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.144; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from imo-da01.mx.aol.com (imo-da01.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.199]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o2M3hjDP024878 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:43:45 -0400 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-da01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.c91.597afadc (43830) for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:43:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-d26.mail.aol.com (magic-d26.mail.aol.com [172.19.146.160]) by cia-dc02.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILCIADC023-ab364ba6e76db4; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:43:41 -0400 From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: <96618.6abd17e2.38d8416d@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:43:41 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fwd: Question on RD2-C To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_96618.6abd17e2.38d8416d_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5132 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 75.230.212.141 X-AOL-IP: 172.19.146.160 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: WRJJRS@aol.com --part1_96618.6abd17e2.38d8416d_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en =20 In a message dated 3/21/2010 10:04:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 bbradburry@bellsouth.net writes: =20 I agree that steel rivets would be better than the bolts. I am not certai= n=20 of the difficulty in squeezing them, but they would provide a =E2=80=9Cpre= ss fit=E2=80=9D=20 where the bolts would not. The strength would be similar in shear which= is=20 where most of the forces would be. They would also be a lighter, importan= t=20 in a rotating mass. The idea of putting something like =E2=80=9CProseal= =E2=80=9D in=20 before assembly makes sense as well. The combination should ensure that= shear=20 forces would never move it. In the current situation it must be moving el= se=20 the rivets could not loosen???=20 Bill B Ok guys the obvious solution here is to size the holes. Most bolt shanks= =20 wont vary more than a few thousanths. The fix is to drill the holes out=20 undersize and ream than to fit with an adjustable reamer --part1_96618.6abd17e2.38d8416d_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
In a message dated 3/21/2010 10:04:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, bbrad= burry@bellsouth.net writes:

I agree that steel rivets would be better than the bo= lts.  I am not certain of the difficulty in squeezing them, but they= would provide a =E2=80=9Cpress fit=E2=80=9D where the bolts would not.&nb= sp; The strength would be similar in shear which is where most of the forc= es would be.  They would also be a lighter, important in a rotating= mass.   The idea of putting something like =E2=80=9CProseal=E2= =80=9D in before assembly makes sense as well.  The combination shoul= d ensure that shear forces would never move it.  In the current situa= tion it must be moving else the rivets could not loosen???

 

Bill B

Ok guys the obvious solution here is to size the holes. Most bolt sha= nks wont vary more than a few thousanths. The fix is to drill the holes ou= t undersize and ream than to fit with an adjustable reamer
--part1_96618.6abd17e2.38d8416d_boundary--