|
|
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*)
Ernest,
Don't get me wrong I'm actually working on aluminium housings as we speak -
however the truth of the exercise is fully evident when costs and weights
are real, rather than anticipated. Machining anything is a hugely expensive
part of any development and there's a lot of machining in end housings.
Hey I'm on the diet too, but firewall forward weight is my main concern, for
C of G requirements.
George ( down under)
|
|