X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2279425 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:56:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.204; envelope-from=Lehanover@aol.com Received: from Lehanover@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.c1d.1fc65a27 (29678) for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:56:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Lehanover@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 22:56:15 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] engine mounts To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1187837775" X-Mailer: 9.0 Security Edition for Windows sub 5374 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1187837775 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/22/2007 10:22:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rob@mum.edu writes: Here's a question for everyone. I just received a 20B Rotary from Bruce Turrentine to put in my BD4 which I currently fly with a Ford V6. Now, I need to build an engine mount for the 20B but I can't decide whether to use the s-beam mount or the flat plate mount like Tracy uses. They both have advantaged, but my question is, in a worst case scenario, like if I should through a prop blade, which of the two mounts mentioned above will keep the engine connected to the plane longer? Or are there other alternatives that might be better? I would love to hear any and all opinions on this subject. Robert Bollinger FM1099 MUM Fairfield IA 52557 (641)472-7000 ex2068 (641)919-3213 cell _rob@mum.edu_ (mailto:rob@mum.edu) I would (will) go with the flat plate. All of the pan bolts are involved. Four Lord style mounts involved. Compact and uses the engine block for added stiffness. I will include the nose gear in my mount to reduce fire wall complexity. Possible oil control benefit. Lynn E. Hanover ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------------------------1187837775 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 8/22/2007 10:22:59 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,=20 rob@mum.edu writes:

<= FONT=20 style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size= =3D2>

Here's a question for everyone.

I just received a 20B Rotary from Bruce=20 Turrentine to put in my BD4 which I currently fly with a Ford V6. Now,&nbs= p;I=20 need to build an engine mount for the 20B but I can't decide whether to us= e=20 the s-beam mount or the flat plate mount like Tracy uses. They both have=20 advantaged, but my question is, in a worst case scenario, like if I should= =20 through a prop blade, which of the two mounts mentioned above will keep th= e=20 engine connected to the plane longer? Or are there other alternatives= =20 that might be better?

I would love to hear any and all opinions= on this=20 subject.

Robert Bollinger
FM1099 MUM
Fairfie= ld IA=20 52557
(641)472-7000 ex2068
(641)919-3213 cell
rob@mum.edu

I would (will) go with the flat plate. All of the pan bolts are=20 involved. Four Lord style mounts involved.

Compact and uses the engine block for added stiffness. I will include t= he=20 nose gear in my mount to reduce fire wall complexity. Possible oil cont= rol=20 benefit.

Lynn E. Hanover

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com= .

-------------------------------1187837775--