X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:17:29 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imr-da06.mx.aol.com ([205.188.169.203] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.0) with ESMTP id 5071662 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:24:07 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.169.203; envelope-from=rwolf99@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-da06.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-da06.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.51.142]) by imr-da06.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id p72FNM7i021510 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:23:22 -0400 Received: from core-dqb003a.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dqb003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.212.201]) by mtaomg-da06.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 7BEB4E000088 for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:23:21 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Moving Legacy on the Crankshaft X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI X-AOL-IP: 174.18.245.52 X-MB-Message-Type: User MIME-Version: 1.0 From: rwolf99@aol.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CE1F3F3F59A11E_187C_7090_webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 34007-STANDARD Received: from 174.18.245.52 by webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com (205.188.252.208) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Tue, 02 Aug 2011 11:23:21 -0400 X-Original-Message-Id: <8CE1F3F3F41D34A-187C-266F@webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [174.18.245.52] X-Original-Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:23:21 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:428305568:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d338e4e3816695fec This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CE1F3F3F59A11E_187C_7090_webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" One poster suggested that nothing firewall forward is rated to take the wei= ght of the airplane while rolling it from teh front yard to the back yard o= n the rotisserie. This is actually not correct. The engine mount and fire= wall should be sized for the weight of the engine at the maximum G limits o= f the airplane, acting at the CG of the engine/prop. I would not be worrie= d about the bending moment on the engine mount or firewall, but I would hav= e to run the numbers to make sure. On the other hand, putting a huge bending/shear load into the crankshaft sc= ares the crap out of me. Call the engineering department of your engine ma= nufacturer and tell them what you propose and ask what they think. When th= ey regain consciousness they will probably have many colorful words to sugg= est that it's a bad idea. However, I'm just speculating since I have not r= un thse numbers either. I appreciate your plight, but it would be better to find another way. - Rob Wolf ----------MB_8CE1F3F3F59A11E_187C_7090_webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
One poster suggested that nothing firewall forward is rated to take th= e weight of the airplane while rolling it from teh front yard to the back y= ard on the rotisserie.  This is actually not correct.  The engine= mount and firewall should be sized for the weight of the engine at the max= imum G limits of the airplane, acting at the CG of the engine/prop.  I= would not be worried about the bending moment on the engine mount or firew= all, but I would have to run the numbers to make sure.
 
On the other hand, putting a huge bending/shear load into the cranksha= ft scares the crap out of me.  Call the engineering department of your= engine manufacturer and tell them what you propose and ask what they think= .  When they regain consciousness they will probably have many colorfu= l words to suggest that it's a bad idea.  However, I'm just speculatin= g since I have not run thse numbers either.
 
I appreciate your plight, but it would be better to find another way.<= /div>
 
- Rob Wolf
 ----------MB_8CE1F3F3F59A11E_187C_7090_webmail-d090.sysops.aol.com--