Mike Wills wrote:

  An uneducated response from the guy who built it. I had a couple of
reasons for leaving that out.

1) The lower mounts being very near the engine/psru cg take virtually all
the  load. The Barry mounts installed here are a fairly stiff grade of
rubber. Without the upper mounts installed the engine drops a little at the
nose but can be pulled into proper position with about 10 pounds of force.
The upper mounts will see thrust loads but the thrust load shouldnt put any
bending stress on these points.

2) As a somewhat conservative approach I've used a thicker wall tubing than
is usually used in the construction of the mount. Most of the tubing is
3/4" x .059. The two lowest mount tubes are 1" x .059. A friend who is an
mech. engineer took a look at it and was satisfied that it will do the job.

3) The Vans supplied conical mount that I cut up to make this only had 2
tubes to the upper right mount point and one of those tubes was curved to
clear the mags. The upper left mount point on the stock mount is supported
by a single tube. Hundreds if not thousands of these mounts are safely
flying and have been doing so for years on RVs.

Mike Wills

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org