X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au ([211.29.132.190] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTPS id 2279681 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 03:21:10 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=211.29.132.190; envelope-from=lendich@optusnet.com.au Received: from george (d198-142-112-72.dsl.nsw.optusnet.com.au [198.142.112.72]) by mail09.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with SMTP id l7N7KNDO014840 for ; Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:20:25 +1000 Message-ID: <001f01c7e556$1555ef50$48708ec6@george> From: "George Lendich" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Engine mounts Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:20:27 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C7E5A9.E6269370" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0657-0, 12/12/2006), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C7E5A9.E6269370 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Bill, Your integral sump idea is good also and may be the strongest. Mine is = better if you want to remove the sump without removing the engine. Your right, Larry could do a lighter version - me, I like it a little = heavier, I'm a shocker for overdesign, especially if it's the main = mounting method. I have been scratching my head for a couple of years = now, and the two methods mentioned here are the best that I can see. I'm = not knocking PL Bellhousing, but we are talking engine mounts here. It's = either one or the other, of the methods mentioned. George ( down under) George, I really liked your bellhousing! I believe with a guy like = Larry cutting the form CNC yours would be the "way to go!" With a = CNC'ed form I don't even think it would weigh more than a pound more. I = like it because with simple add ons you could fit almost anything.Much = more flexible. That is what you and Butch were after anyway right? An = aside, you might look at the way that Mistral is going with the 20B = based engine. The bellhousing is tapped and the bed mount is attached in = the same position as your pads! The 2 rotor could use the lightest setup = possible. The 3 rotor is light enough that a good mount a few pounds = heavier wouldn't make any difference to me at all. I think you were = going the right direction. Bill Jepson (But then you knew that already didn't you George?) That's why I designed a bellhousing ( with Butch) with side pads for = engine mounts. George (down under) Robert, Funny you should ask. I have been working on this problem for a = while. Those devils at Mazda seem to have conspired to make the Renesis = very hard to design a mount for. They took away the point for a mount on = top of the engine. They moved the engine mount bolts all over the place = and put a lot of exhaust and plumbing in the way . It was as if they sat = down and said....how can we make this engine really really hard to = instal in an airplane. I would have to agree with Lynn on this one. I am going to use the = plate option. I will be modifying it so that it is lower profile. The = plate will be the size of the engine pan and the bolts will go in from = the side. The standard conical mounts will be on the sides as close to = the engine as I can get them. Imagine a hybrid between a bed mount and a = P51 beam mount. It is a difficult problem if you have a tight cowl. Don't rely on the engine mount to help you if you loose a prop = blade!!=20 Put at least a 3/16 safety cable on the engine. =20 There are some design suggestions here: Monty -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition.=20 Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/967 - Release Date: = 22/08/2007 6:51 PM ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C7E5A9.E6269370 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Bill,
Your integral sump idea is good also and may be the strongest. Mine = is=20 better if you want to remove the sump without removing the engine.
Your right, Larry could do a lighter version - me, I like it a = little=20 heavier, I'm a shocker for overdesign, especially if it's the main = mounting=20 method. I have been scratching my head for a couple of years now, and = the two=20 methods mentioned here are the best that I can see. I'm not = knocking PL=20 Bellhousing, but we are talking engine mounts here. It's either one or = the=20 other, of the methods mentioned.
George ( down under)
George, I really liked your bellhousing! I believe with a guy = like Larry=20 cutting the form CNC yours would be the "way to go!"  With a = CNC'ed form=20 I don't even think it would weigh more than a pound more. I like it = because=20 with simple add ons you could fit almost anything.Much more flexible. = That is=20 what you and Butch were after anyway right?  An aside, you might = look at=20 the way that Mistral is going with the 20B based engine. The = bellhousing is=20 tapped and the bed mount is attached in the same position as your = pads! The 2=20 rotor could use the lightest setup possible. The 3 rotor is light = enough that=20 a good mount a few pounds heavier wouldn't make any difference to me = at all. I=20 think you were going the right direction.
 
Bill Jepson (But then you knew that already didn't you = George?)
 
That's why I designed a bellhousing = ( with=20 Butch) with side pads for engine mounts.
George (down under)
Robert,
 
Funny you should ask. I have been = working on=20 this problem for a while. Those devils at Mazda seem to have=20 conspired to make the Renesis very hard to design a mount for. = They took=20 away the point for a mount on top of the engine. They moved the = engine=20 mount bolts all over the place and put a lot of exhaust and = plumbing=20 in the way . It was as if they sat down and said....how can we = make this=20 engine really really hard to instal in an airplane.
 
I would have to agree with Lynn = on this one.=20 I am going to use the plate option. I will be modifying it so = that it=20 is lower profile. The plate will be the size of the engine pan and = the=20 bolts will go in from the side. The standard conical mounts will = be on the=20 sides as close to the engine as I can get them. Imagine a hybrid = between a=20 bed mount and a P51 beam mount.
 
It is a difficult problem if = you have a=20 tight cowl.
 
Don't rely on the engine mount to = help you if=20 you loose a prop blade!!
 
Put at least a 3/16 safety = cable on the=20 engine.  
 
There are some design suggestions = here:
 
Monty
 



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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free = Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.2/967 - Release = Date:=20 22/08/2007 6:51 PM
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C7E5A9.E6269370--