Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613)
In-Reply-To: <list-3179576@logan.com>
References: <list-3179576@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <9467C584-93A7-11D8-B637-0003930BF7DE@charter.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: kelseyjewett <kelseyjewett@charter.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 13B dynafocal mount - was dream time
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 08:21:36 -0700
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

I like the idea of having my cg and FWF weight the same as a Lycoming 
o-320. I went to the web site for the Swedish rotary, and I liked the 
simplicity of the rear casting bolting to the standard mount. I also 
like Mikes comment about  moving the prop flange forward two inches. My 
RV-7A could use a longer, sleeker forward fuselage. This could also 
give more room for the cooling system below the engine.

KelseyJewett  still dreaming
On Apr 19, 2004, at 4:49 PM, Michael McGee wrote:

> At 08:39 2004-04-19, you wrote:
>
>> > the puzzle. It seem there is a lot of re inventing
>> the wheel. I
>>
>>
>> I was thinking that, too.  Then I realized that what
>> is going on is parallel developement.  Something you
>> will probably never see in a corporate lab.  Lots of
>> slightly different ideas being worked on at the same
>> time.
>>
>> What I see happening right now is that a lot of
>> these ideas that have been on the workbench for
>> years are coming out of developement and into long
>> term testing.  I think over the next year or so you
>> will start to see a lot more consensus on what works
>> best, as the different approaches get tested and
>> we're able to see what works best in the real world.
>>  Then you'll start to see people willing to bet the
>> farm on a business venture to create firewall
>> forward packages.
>
> Speaking of dreaming..
>
> What do you guys think of the viability of a front cover cast into the 
> form of a standard Lycoming dynafocal-1 mount?
>
> A loose collection of my thoughts so far:
>
> I think it would sell well enough to get the price under $500 for the 
> kit.  I was bs-ing with the local rotary engine builder the other day 
> and he showed me a very nice third-gen oil pan that was cast as a 
> torsionally stiff replacement for the stamped steel original.  The 
> reason behind the pan is another story but the casting work looked 
> great (from this engineer/ non-casting expert's perspective anyway).  
> He insists that he has a casting guy that is capable of making what we 
> need if I can get him a proto type part.
>
> The thought here is a Dynafocal mount would open up more of the market 
> to those who would convert to rotary engines (like I'm doing) if it 
> didn't require changing the motor mount.  I realize that we can make a 
> decent mount without it and use something like the Schertz beam or the 
> bell housing that the ACRE group is working on.  The Dyna-1 mount 
> would be an effort towards more of a standardization for aircraft use.
>
> I've been toying with this for the last couple of weeks and while it 
> needs some serious planning for water pump and alternator 
> accommodations, I've got a bit of it worked out.  As expected it isn't 
> as easy as originally thought.  Of course if it was it would already 
> be done.  It would be supplied as a package with water pump system and 
> alternator mount.
>
> This does require using a remote water pump like what Paul Lamar 
> created and which isn't a bad idea.  It gets the pump down lower for 
> better performance.  If you use a 3rd gen water pump with its own 
> remote pump housing it could be mounted co-axially with the crank and 
> get rid of a water pump drive belt.  (3rd gen pumps run opposite 
> direction to earlier pumps)
>
> It also would require using the 3rd gen crank angle sensor plate and 
> pickups.
>
> There are enough bolts on the front end plate to hold it together.  
> Additional reinforcements for the aerobatics crowd would be added at 
> the oil pan-to-front cover flange and on the top from the EGR port on 
> the center plate to the top of the motor mount/front cover.  This 
> would probably be standard for the 20Bs.
>
> -Could be that the sealing surfaces would be a problem as a structural 
> interface?
> -It would put the prop flange about 2 inches forward of the Lycoming 
> installation.  However that would put the 13B c.g. about the same as 
> the Lyc.
>
> As an RV-4 owner the thought of a motor mount as compact as the 
> dynafocal mount is appealing.  Yes, I know it has been done on an RV-4 
> otherwise.  I'm just looking at future possibilities and.. gee.. 
> ANOTHER project.
>
> Okay, enough for now, you guys shoot holes in this for me....
>
>
> Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR, 
> jmpcrftr-at-teleport.com
> 13B in gestation mode, RD-1C, EC-2.
> ..need to quit thinking and get some building done...
>
>
>>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>