Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.40; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com
From: WRJJRS@aol.com
Message-ID: <47022.703c765b.3901447a@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:19:38 EDT
Subject: Re: Lightweight rotary parts and engine mounts (was Cooling for ground runs)
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_47022.703c765b.3901447a_boundary"


--part1_47022.703c765b.3901447a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Darn it I did it again! I promised Al I'd update the subject line. So  I 
have and I've resent this message.
So if you read the previous , sorry.
Bill Jepson
 
 
In a message dated 4/21/2010 10:16:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
shipchief@aol.com writes:

Bill;
Thanks for taking the time and effort to outline what progress and  
problems have been encountered in the quest for a lighter Mazda based rotary  
engine. 
Are you thinking about making a 'front' sideplate with mount  points?  
Then we could leave out the bedplate and a few feet  of mount tube?
That wouldn't make the engine lighter, but the engine  + mount would be 
even lighter yet, and open up more space for exhaust systems  and coolers.
I'm just asking, because you must have already  thought of this, and 
inquireing minds....
Thanks;
Scott


Scott,
We are hoping to update a version of the original PSRU. The best system  
would have mounting provisions on the bellhousing for a three-point mount  
similar to the one used in the Questair Venture. The engine mount would be a  
tubing version of the mount used on the P-51. Take a look at one some time it 
is  an excellent layout. In fact if you get a chance take a look at the 
engine mount  on the Thundermustang scale kit running the Falconner V12 engine. 
They did a  tubing mount that is just like I want to do. I do NOT like the 
sandwich mount  plate. The system is heavy when finished and the rubbers are 
too close to the  exhaust where it's the hottest. Not the best solution. 
The heat problem is even  a bigger problem than the structural problems. You 
can make the mount strong  enough, but several of the guys running the plate 
mount have had to replace the  Barry mounts in around 20 hours due to 
cracking or melting, not good. The  rear/front plate that will bolt up to the 
dynafocal or conical mount is  attractive, but has some problems too. The rotary 
is built like a stack of  pancakes. It is doweled for alignment, but those 
dowels were never intended to  support the engine AND the PSRU and prop! 
Mistral has gone away from this  on their 3 rotor which is a bed mount. I'm not 
sure but I don't think they  intend to continue with it on the 2 rotor 
either. (My opinion only.) On  their Le Mans 4 rotor Mazda used 2 carbon fiber 
honeycomb plates attached  to the engine to keep it in alignment and to allow 
them to use it as a stressed  member. This could be considered an 
excellent, if high priced solution. They  still used the plates to carry the load 
rather than mount to the end of the  engine. Once the steel intermediate 
housings are designed we may include  "ears" to make a very lightweight 3 point 
mount nearest the CG of the  engine-PSRU-prop combination. This is what the 
dynafocal mount is intended to do  anyway. The Superlite engine used built in 
ears for mounting. The tubes give you  something to mount the radiators on 
too rather than requiring their own  subframe. Cheers,
Bill Jepson

--part1_47022.703c765b.3901447a_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2180" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=3Drole_body style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY=
: Arial"  bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><F=
ONT id=3Drole_document  face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<DIV>&nbsp;Darn it I did it again! I promised Al I'd update the subject li=
ne. So=20
I have and I've resent this message.</DIV>
<DIV>So if you read the previous , sorry.</DIV>
<DIV>Bill Jepson</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/21/2010 10:16:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
shipchief@aol.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE  style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: bl=
ue 2px solid"><FONT    style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DAria=
l color=3D#000000 size=3D2><FONT    face=3Darial color=3Dblack size=3D2>
  <DIV>Bill;</DIV>
  <DIV>Thanks for taking the time and effort to outline what progress and=
=20
  problems have been encountered in the quest for a lighter Mazda based ro=
tary=20
  engine. </DIV>
  <DIV>Are you thinking about making a&nbsp;'front' sideplate with mount=
=20
  points?&nbsp; </DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"CLEAR: both">Then we could leave out the bedplate and a fe=
w feet=20
  of mount tube?</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"CLEAR: both">That wouldn't make the engine lighter, but th=
e engine=20
  + mount would be even lighter yet, and open up more space for exhaust sy=
stems=20
  and coolers.</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"CLEAR: both">I'm just asking, because you must have alread=
y=20
  thought of this, and inquireing minds....</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"CLEAR: both">Thanks;</DIV>
  <DIV style=3D"CLEAR: both">Scott</DIV></FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Scott,</DIV>
<DIV>We are hoping to update a version of the original PSRU. The best syst=
em=20
would have mounting provisions on the bellhousing for a three-point mount=
=20
similar to the one used in the Questair Venture. The engine mount would be=
 a=20
tubing version of the mount used on the P-51. Take a look at one some time=
 it is=20
an excellent layout. In fact if you get a chance take a look at the engine=
 mount=20
on the Thundermustang scale kit running the Falconner V12 engine. They did=
 a=20
tubing mount that is just like I want to do. I do NOT like the sandwich mo=
unt=20
plate. The system is heavy when finished and the rubbers are too close to=
 the=20
exhaust where it's the hottest. Not the best solution. The heat problem is=
 even=20
a bigger problem than the structural problems. You can make the mount stro=
ng=20
enough, but several of the guys running the plate mount have had to replac=
e the=20
Barry mounts in around 20 hours due to cracking or melting, not good. The=
=20
rear/front plate that will bolt up to the dynafocal or conical mount is=20
attractive, but has some problems too. The rotary is built like a stack of=
=20
pancakes. It is doweled for alignment, but those dowels were never intende=
d to=20
support the engine AND the PSRU and prop! Mistral has gone&nbsp;away from=
 this=20
on their 3 rotor which is a bed mount. I'm not sure but I don't think they=
=20
intend to continue with it on the 2 rotor either. (My opinion only.)&nbsp;=
On=20
their Le Mans 4 rotor Mazda used 2 carbon fiber honeycomb&nbsp;plates atta=
ched=20
to the engine to keep it in alignment and to allow them to use it as a str=
essed=20
member. This could be considered an excellent, if high priced solution. Th=
ey=20
still used the plates to carry the load rather than mount to the end of th=
e=20
engine.&nbsp;Once the steel intermediate housings are designed we may incl=
ude=20
"ears" to make a very lightweight 3 point mount nearest the CG of the=20
engine-PSRU-prop combination. This is what the dynafocal mount is intended=
 to do=20
anyway. The Superlite engine used built in ears for mounting. The tubes gi=
ve you=20
something to mount the radiators on too rather than requiring their own=20
subframe. Cheers,</DIV>
<DIV>Bill Jepson</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>

--part1_47022.703c765b.3901447a_boundary--