OK the trick here is this side truss must lie in a single
plain. The length of the schertz beam is adjusted accordingly.
The lower outer firewall mounting points are not really
needed but we will use them anyway to laterally brace
the nose gear space frame. Not shown yet. There are
some othe minor braces as well. The rear motor mount will
required a custom oil pan but it too is rather simple.
Not done yet. I just want to know what all you people
think.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The front motor mount is beautiful. Really clean! Sorry to hear that
a custom pan will be required for the back strut. I can't see why,
but I take your word for it. What about the strut bracket I
prototyped a month or so ago which is attached via the rear pan
bolts? Jerry
Something similar Jerry but the rear mount will be tilted
forward to pick up the top of the nose gear structure so a bit
of oil pan clearance will be required. We have this strong
nose gear structure sticking out there we might as well use it.
Engine inertia loads in a hard landing will wind up in the
nose gear structure anyway.
---------------------------------------
I have come to the conclusion we don't have enough oil in the
pan anyway. My 230 HP O-230 Cont. has 12 quarts. If you put more oil
in the pan, say 10 quarts, it takes longer for the oil to over heat in
takeoff and climb out.
BTW The biggest problem with putting the rad behind the engine
is having to seal the cowl perfectly. Almost impossible with
such a large object. Also the air heats up as it first must pass over
the engine and exhaust before it passes through the rad.
Long ducting to the back side of a rad mounted near the firewall is
almost as difficult.
Perhaps for this airplane the rad under the gear box as per Mark
Steitle and Chuck Dunlap installation's are the best compromise. The
back side of the rad is somewhat obstructed by the engine
and oil pan and is also subject to radiation from the exhaust.
Those problems seem to be relatively minor as the exhaust can
be shielded.
The best possible configuration would be vertically mounted
on the cold side of the engine but that is so unusual most people
don't feel comfortable with that configuration. Spark plug access is
also difficult. The cowl winds up somewhat unsymmetrical in
the front view due to the larger opening needed on the right side. The
left side hole can feed cold air to the intake
system.
---------------------------------------
OK here is the first real MM 3D.
I'll do a separate one for the rear motor mount.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Clearly, the Legacy deserves more rotor(s) (to fill up the void)...
Wait.. Wasn't I the one preaching light weight, just yesterday?? :)
Still, the Legacy is successfully flying with big-bore Continentals.
The 2 rotor drawn in there seems puny (from the size and weight
standpoint).
Regards,
Matt-
Yes it does Matt :) Here was my first take.
Lets hope the two rotor is a p-port.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
And who cares about symmetry? Nothing's ACTUALLY symetric anyway. Scoop
on one side is perfectly fine. Think Chipmunk or anything powered by LOM.
None of the Conts/Lycs are symmetric - offset by the bore spacing, left to
right.
Have a look:
http://www.moraviation.com/
And since I am a bit of a Rutan devotee, for real assymetry, check out:
http://142.26.194.131/aerodynamics1/Appendix/Aircraft/Boomerang.html
Regards,
Matt-
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2005 All world wide rights reserved.