Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <4284A715.1080202@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 09:09:41 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Aluminum side housings
References: <list-942372@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-942372@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

George Lendich wrote:

>>We were discussing aluminum side and intermediate housings a couple of
>>weeks ago.  A figure of somewhere around 15lbs per housing in weight
>>savings was thrown out.  The exact figure isn't as important the fact
>>that several Delta builders have had to stack approximately that much
>>weight in the tail to get the proper W&B.
>>
>Ernest,
>Surface treatments are problematic- no real cost effective treatment as yet.
>Composite( aluminium and steel) housings don't save that much weight, I
>forget the exact figures but will save about 30 lbs, at best. A hell of a
>lot of work ( and cost) to get that 30 lbs.
>
>  
>

I tend to agree with you, George, but you have to balance the work 
required to remove 30lbs from the engine against the work required to 
remove 30lbs from my slim figure*.  I won't even consider aluminum sides 
until I do a (semi) final weight and balance.  If it comes down to 
aluminum housings or more junk-n-da-trunk, the debate will be wide open 
again.

(The humor will be apparent when you get to the email where Ed tells me 
that I'm a little stout for his RV 8*)

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |