Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 407846 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:49:23 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from nc.rr.com (cpe-024-211-191-066.nc.rr.com [24.211.191.66]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i8CLmNSG013895 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:48:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4144BD94.5040406@nc.rr.com> Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:20:20 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine off the floor References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine David Staten wrote: > I am more worried about the stamped sheetmetal pan than anything else, > Ed... Maybe I am misunderstanding your intentions, but you are going to > weld the ears to the pan? or are you going to just bolt them to the > engine in the corners (sandwiching either them, or the pan, against the > block)..? I'm sure the bolts would be fine, since we use similar bolts > in the more common "sandwich" mounts that are being marketed for the > rotary, and if there is a concern, use longer corner pieces that recruit > more bolts to the cause. Wouldn't it be possible to use a sandwich plate > of your own using the steel plate you are considering, but having it > mostly cut out within the dimensions of the block/pan (almost like a > gasket shaped plate with the ears on it.. ).. > > Dave > My thought was to place the ears under the pan. Bolts would pass through the arms and then the pan. IN ADDITION, the arms would be welded to the pan. The IN ADDITION part is the core of the confusion I think. I agree with the other comments that the oil pan is not a part to be trusted to do the job alone, but the vertical sheet of crappy .050 steel would help stiffen the arms. I've been thinking that the arms would tend to twist without some extra support. The other stated concern, removal of the oilpan is a moot point here. The supporting beams of the mount will block any attempt to remove the pan with the engine on top. That was what got me thinking in this direction. (A leads to B, which gets you to C...) -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience." Veeduber