|
Well, actually, "Yes" to both your questions. But, I
consider the one - straight as an arrow and the other just a "pointing factor" -
which happens to point in the wrong direction now that I went from the 2.17 to
the 2.85 gear box. But, sigh, what can I do but keep the engine from
finding out that its not suppose to work that way. {:>)
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2007 12:47
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: design
steps
Hey Ed,
there may be more to that!:
How about "outlawed", "heresy installation?", "impossible", "rebellious",
" no way", "450 degrees", hey I'll find more if you want!!
About the "crooked":
a) Any Tracy-parts in there??
b) Any prop- offset degrees??
TJ :)
On 8/31/07, Ed
Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
wrote:
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 -----
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)
|