Message-Id: <6.0.1.1.1.20040424110322.02b7a390@mail.bellsouth.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:37:49 -0400
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
From: CCI <brecab@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive
In-Reply-To: <list-3188154@logan.com>
References: <list-3188154@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Rusty, I don't recommend doing this for the following reasons: the firewall 
to mount attach bolts are intended to be loaded in tension and shear, not 
bending. If the hole into the firewall is drilled correctly, the bolt will 
be put in bending if you shim it, otherwise you have to "hog" out the hole 
to make it work which isn't desirable, either. Another consideration is if 
you change the alignment of you landing gear that much, it will make you 
airplane ground handling a little more interesting than you may want. 
Experiment as much as you want, I just want to go on record that I don't 
recommend shimming my motor mounts, they were never designed for that. For 
those of you considering the 2.85 drive and already have one of our mounts 
configured for the 2.17, we may offer a different mount plate to correct 
the left offset if there is enough interest. Just contact me off the list. 
conversions@bellsouth.net  Be safe, Fred


At 10:36 AM 4/24/2004, you wrote:

>I'm doing it!  While laying in bed last night, the solution hit me.  It's so
>simple that most of you probably assumed that I ruled it out for some
>reason.
>
>All I have to do is shim the engine mount to the right as we discussed
>before, but rather than let this screw up the relationship between the
>engine and cowl, I'll move the cowl with the engine.  All I have to do is
>extend the rear edge of the cowl on the left side about 3/4", and refit it
>to the fuselage.  Fortunately, I only have it attached with temporary #8
>screws, rather than the eventual fasteners.  I'll take a close look at this
>today, and take some measurements to make sure it's going to be as
>relatively painless as I think.
>
>The only negatives are the fact that the cowl might look a little crooked,
>and the gear will be slightly misaligned with the fuselage.  I'm not sure
>too many people would notice the slightly crooked cowl, and I can't imagine
>1.5 degrees of misalignment being a huge problem with the gear.  It might
>even work in my favor for correcting torque.
>
>Now, this won't happen overnight, and in fact, I'm still very anxious to get
>Tracy's old prop to do some testing.  Primarily, his prop gives me the
>ability to directly compare my engine's performance to his, which is pretty
>much the gold standard.  That will allow me to get an intake that works
>pretty well.  Once that's complete, I'll convert to the new drive.  In the
>mean time, it takes a few months to get a prop from Performance props
>anyway, and Tracy's next -C drive production is scheduled for June.
>
>Hey Tracy, or Ed- What's the story on converting a drive from B to C?
>Unless there's a huge savings, I'd probably rather just get a new drive
>anyway.
>
>Cheers,
>Rusty (at this rate my Airbike will never get new wings)
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html