X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2302739 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:02:54 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 ([24.74.103.61]) by cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20070831150215.GFQO3972.cdptpa-omta06.mail.rr.com@edward2> for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:02:15 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c7ebdf$ed059970$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] design steps Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 11:02:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0004_01C7EBBE.65B60610" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C7EBBE.65B60610 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey, Kevin, you can't talk about my innovative mounting approach that = way. Side ways, 90 degrees, "Plugs Up" all OK - but not crooked {:>). Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: kevin lane=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 1:21 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] design steps I have purchased a turrentine renesis to eventually replace the O-320 = in my -6A. I was playing with intake manifold ideas and realized that = the engine mount could dictate the design possibilities significantly, = especially with the exhaust, which requires three tubes (like my prior = 20B). the Schertz beam type mount puts the diagonal tubes way outboard, = and, it seems to me, provides solid mounting tabs for radiators and = such. the standard bed-mount looks like the front diagonals will = conflict with the exhaust and affect my intake manifold design (thinking = same side). I haven't built a plywood firewall yet, just eyeballing = things. when I was building my rv-8/20B the engine mount was ordered and I = worked around it. are these the normal steps, or do I need to mock up = both concurrently? is there that many choices in the mount geometry for = the -6A? would changing my plane to a taildragger benefit me much? = Ed's no help 'cause he got his in 90 degrees crooked! :-) kevin = (portland/cape cod trip Saturday) ------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C7EBBE.65B60610 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hey, Kevin, you can't talk about my innovative = mounting=20 approach that way.  Side ways, 90 degrees, "Plugs Up" all OK - but = not=20 crooked {:>).
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 kevin = lane=20
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 = 1:21=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] design = steps

I have purchased a turrentine = renesis to=20 eventually replace the O-320 in my -6A.  I was playing with = intake=20 manifold ideas and realized that the engine mount could dictate the = design=20 possibilities significantly, especially with the exhaust, which = requires three=20 tubes (like my prior 20B).  the Schertz beam type mount puts the = diagonal=20 tubes way outboard, and, it seems to me, provides solid mounting tabs = for=20 radiators and such.  the standard bed-mount looks like the front=20 diagonals will conflict with the exhaust and affect my intake manifold = design=20 (thinking same side).  I haven't built a plywood firewall yet, = just=20 eyeballing things.
    when I was = building my=20 rv-8/20B the engine mount was ordered and I worked around = it.  are=20 these the normal steps, or do I need to mock up both = concurrently? =20 is there that many choices in the mount geometry for the -6A?  = would=20 changing my plane to a taildragger benefit me much?  Ed's no help = 'cause=20 he got his in 90 degrees crooked! :-)    kevin = (portland/cape=20 cod trip Saturday)
------=_NextPart_000_0004_01C7EBBE.65B60610--