X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma04.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4174084 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:57 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.42; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from imo-da03.mx.aol.com (imo-da03.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.201]) by imr-ma04.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o2M3sGdk016625 for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:16 -0400 Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-da03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.ca8.569a44ac (37132) for ; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from magic-d26.mail.aol.com (magic-d26.mail.aol.com [172.19.146.160]) by cia-ma02.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILCIAMA026-910c4ba6e9e4fc; Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:12 -0400 From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: <96b7c.523ef8b8.38d843e4@aol.com> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:12 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Fwd: Question on RD2-C To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_96b7c.523ef8b8.38d843e4_boundary" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5132 X-AOL-ORIG-IP: 75.230.212.141 X-AOL-IP: 172.19.146.160 X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: WRJJRS@aol.com --part1_96b7c.523ef8b8.38d843e4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en =20 In a message dated 3/21/2010 10:04:09 AM Pacific Standard Time,=20 bbradburry@bellsouth.net writes: =20 I agree that steel rivets would be better than the bolts. I am not certai= n=20 of the difficulty in squeezing them, but they would provide a =E2=80=9Cpre= ss fit=E2=80=9D=20 where the bolts would not. The strength would be similar in shear which= is=20 where most of the forces would be. They would also be a lighter, importan= t=20 in a rotating mass. The idea of putting something like =E2=80=9CProseal= =E2=80=9D in=20 before assembly makes sense as well. The combination should ensure that= shear=20 forces would never move it. In the current situation it must be moving el= se=20 the rivets could not loosen???=20 Bill B Sorry guys my system glitched. I sent the e-mail too soon. An adjustable= =20 reamer is available at most machining supply places. The bolts may be slig= htly=20 different, but you can buy a few extra to get some of the same size. Get= =20 some jet nuts or be sure you locktite or safety wire the nuts too. Bill Jepson --part1_96b7c.523ef8b8.38d843e4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
In a message dated 3/21/2010 10:04:09 AM Pacific Standard Time, bbrad= burry@bellsouth.net writes:

I agree that steel rivets would be better than the bo= lts.  I am not certain of the difficulty in squeezing them, but they= would provide a =E2=80=9Cpress fit=E2=80=9D where the bolts would not.&nb= sp; The strength would be similar in shear which is where most of the forc= es would be.  They would also be a lighter, important in a rotating= mass.   The idea of putting something like =E2=80=9CProseal=E2= =80=9D in before assembly makes sense as well.  The combination shoul= d ensure that shear forces would never move it.  In the current situa= tion it must be moving else the rivets could not loosen???

 

Bill B

Sorry guys my system glitched. I sent the e-mail too soon. An adjusta= ble reamer is available at most machining supply places. The bolts may be= slightly different, but you can buy a few extra to get some of the same= size. Get some jet nuts or be sure you locktite or safety wire the nuts= too.
Bill Jepson
--part1_96b7c.523ef8b8.38d843e4_boundary--