Al Gietzen wrote:

Why the exhaust side?  I want mine on the plug side.  Now we have

three

versions.  I have a feeling Tracy won't be interested.

Al

Paul wrote:

He is interested in the exhaust side mounting. I called him about it.

Why on the plug side Al? I don't think there is room for the starter
between the bell housing mounting bolts on the plug side. I have an
end housing here but no starter so I am not sure about that. Some
early engines had the starter mounted to the end housing on top over
the engine oriented in front of the ring gear. Almost identical to
this picture of the Curtiss Wright rotary. Jon maintains Mazda copied
this engine. I think he is right. You are outnumbered Al :-)

I think plugs side would be better on a pusher.  That's where my stock
mounted starter is.  On the exhaust side it can interfere with your
exhaust system that goes toward the prop on a pusher, not the other
way.

--
Perry J. Mick
Mick Duckt N7XR
http://www.ductedfan.com

The bolt holes shown here are in the proper location. Unless you abandon
at least one bolt hole how did you get the starter on the plugs side?
Got any pictures? Here is a picture of Chuck Harberts Velocity with
the starter on the exhaust side.

Paul Lamar

Yes, the bolt pattern obstruction is my main objection to the spark plug
side starter mount.

 I do understand the possible interfearence with a cooling inlet under the
prop hub (so why not an inlet beside the prop hub?) but no one has shown me
how a radiator can practically fit where a six o-clock starter goes.  I've
been staring at my -4 with the cowl off for a couple of days now and I don't
see a way to get one there unless it were very short or angled so much that
it extended below the lower cowl.  I could be wrong about this but I urge
all builders to MAKE AN ACCURATE DRAWING before commiting to any given
configuration.
Also  note that the Ross starter was intended to be at 6 o-clock because
they assumed the engine would be mounted "plugs-up".

Tracy Crook
rws@altavista.net
www.rotaryaviation.com

The problem with that is very few people have the skills needed to 
make a drawing accurately showing all possible interference points 
me included. Even Boeing has problems with that. A mock up is the 
best way to do it. Never the less here is an RV4 drawing showing a 
rad under the engine. This rad is probably overkill at about 955 
cubic inch core. Chuck Dunlap has demonstrated a 530 cubic inch rad
that works in the hottest state in the nation.

If you fly over after CopperState I will buy you a tank of gas, feed you
and let you stay in the apartment over the hangar to see my mockup. Anything 
to get that starter out from under the redrive :-)

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org