Return-Path: Received: from r1.name2host.com ([64.35.113.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with SMTP id 3188329 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:44:18 -0400 Received: (qmail 1537 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2004 16:44:13 -0000 Received: from adsl-216-101-149-124.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net (HELO rapunzel) (fly@bewersdorff.com@216.101.149.124) by r1.name2host.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2004 16:44:13 -0000 From: "Marko Bewersdorff" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:38:41 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0042_01C429DF.ED761080" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C429DF.ED761080 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Messagewouldn't the most stylish approach be a new motor mount plate? that way you can reposition the prop where you want, too. Marko -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Russell Duffy Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:25 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive Rusty, I don't recommend doing this for the following reasons: Hi Fred, I really hate it when you make sense like this :-) I had already thought about the need to make shims with one side at a 1.5 degree angle, but didn't think about the bolt holes. As I recall, those holes were very precisely drilled (by the previous builder), and the bolts were an excellent fit. To make this work, I'd have to make tapered shims for the bolt head side as well, and accept some enlargement of the holes. Starting to sound much less desirable (again), but I haven't thrown in the towel yet. I'll try to measure the actual offset, and see how much it really is. Rusty (Rev-3 on hold) ------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C429DF.ED761080 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
wouldn't the most stylish approach be a new motor mount plate? = that way=20 you can reposition the prop where you want, too.
 
Marko
-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20 [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]On Behalf Of Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 9:25 AM
To: = Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85=20 redrive

Rusty, I don't recommend doing this for the = following=20 reasons:

 
Hi = Fred, =20
 
I = really hate it when=20 you make sense like this :-)   I had already thought about = the need=20 to make shims with one side at a 1.5 degree angle, but didn't think = about the=20 bolt holes.  As I recall, those holes were very precisely drilled = (by the=20 previous builder), and the bolts were an excellent fit.  To make = this=20 work, I'd have to make tapered shims for the bolt head side as well, = and=20 accept some enlargement of the holes. 
 
Starting to sound much=20 less desirable (again), but I haven't thrown in the towel yet.  = I'll try=20 to measure the actual offset, and see how much it really=20 is.  
 
Rusty = (Rev-3 on=20 hold) 



------=_NextPart_000_0042_01C429DF.ED761080--