X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.12) with ESMTP id 2307228 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Sep 2007 13:51:09 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.132.241; envelope-from=rotary.thjakits@gmail.com Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so229134ana for ; Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=dqt994WlFE6EAGBKYR9OCBf9ibY/+VipnQnOub9npys38AvhHBbb9sTH0wnzLR3E+1PK2Mc0xJq8Kl8rsiB+hAjCQL8JRjDplb3mQDk9EwyKWJ+7FO8oSFx6G04j1G4ZZ59ApUWzKbsFaR//OWuGvYZ0yjhl5kWFOifW6ObnW8o= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=bcKyLBXZmI54/KYOms4DVTaB5bSQsUPlXEykKyqJtt7yGo6gEA5Oh/vettN4hckXJdr4mTu4k5gzQWeHKrRdLxt6ohVNYXgs3COSD0oGrnoe1MP/0itdo82c5EOTwUk/r91IZxxKzQByvH+jIvDja/WhrtyGZx4MxCMSxRyOkbY= Received: by 10.100.38.16 with SMTP id l16mr3146012anl.1188755432300; Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.197.17 with HTTP; Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:50:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <63163d560709021050u336b1ab7k5fb1e4cdd5203c2f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:50:32 -0500 From: "Thomas Jakits" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: design steps In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_9696_27367790.1188755432265" References: ------=_Part_9696_27367790.1188755432265 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline !! On 9/2/07, Ed Anderson wrote: > > 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 2.85gear 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 ----- > *From:* Thomas Jakits > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *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 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 ----- > > *From:* kevin lane > > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > > *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) > > > > > ------=_Part_9696_27367790.1188755432265 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline !!

On 9/2/07, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
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 -----
From: kevin lane
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)


------=_Part_9696_27367790.1188755432265--