Return-Path: Received: from sccmmhc91.asp.att.net ([204.127.203.211] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c2) with ESMTP id 755134 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:45:11 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=204.127.203.211; envelope-from=btilley@mchsi.com Received: from [192.168.1.101] (12-218-75-244.client.mchsi.com[12.218.75.244]) by sccmmhc91.asp.att.net (sccmmhc91) with SMTP id <20050222234421m9100ovnuce>; Tue, 22 Feb 2005 23:44:27 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619.2) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <59b9f774f1742b251fc2b0b97fc9eb29@mchsi.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Bob Tilley Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 2nd battery Re: Amps required to run engine &- hours available Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:44:21 -0500 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619.2) Marvin, I work with a lot of guards on large equipment. You will find that the solution is worse than the problem. I can see the vibrations of the engine & plane will cause the plate to vibrate into the belts pulling them off. Bob On Feb 22, 2005, at 3:04 PM, Marvin Kaye wrote: > > Given the concern about the first broken belt removing the remaining > one, I've often wondered why no one has suggested a sheet metal guard > that separates the 2 belts? A flat sheet of .040 aluminum mounted to > some brackets that were outside the perimeter of the belts with > clearance holes for the pulleys would shield the belts from each > other... there must be at least .250 or more between the belts. Has > anyone ever tried anything like this?