Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #39172
From: <WRJJRS@aol.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: engine mounts
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 04:09:03 EDT
To: <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Robert,
If you look at the photo of Jerry Hey's mount that was attached you can see the Lord mounts. These are a bit larger than the front mounts on the plate type mount. IMHO these would survive the torquing of a thrown blade better than the smaller narrow spacing of the plate mount. Even though there are more mounts the wider arm spacing on the S-beam would probably hold out for longer having re-visited them. I don't think it really maters though since shortly it will rip every bolt right out of the firewall anyway! This REALLY is one of those rarely surviveable failures. You are better off to lose the entire prop. At least that way you might be able to dead stick it in. Why are we wasting so much time going down this 5 miles of bad road anyway? You might ask which of those two wing spars will last longer if struck by a meteor. If your wing falls off you are in serious trouble wouldn't you agree? If your engine parts company with the mount for any reason you are in a highly life threatening situation. The prop sheading a blade is something that can easily cause that to happen if you don't get it turned off fast enough. Unless the engine is welded ot bolted directly to the firewall the engine will come loose if you don't stop that propeller.
Bill 
Bill or anyone,
I guess I need to change my question to more specifics. For example, what do you think of the single point attachment on the rear of the s-beam verses the more substantial attachment of the flat plate mount. I personally don't know if I feel comfortable with a single point of attachment in the rear. For example, there may be times when the engine gets torqued around due to sudden changes of flight direction.
Robert
 




Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster