Doc and Jerry. Here is the prelim design.
The tubes from the lower end of the nose gear socket up to
the upper hard points are the breakthrough feature. This
supports the nose gear socket from rotating clockwise on
a hard drop in landing and still provides plenty of room
for a large oil pan and a radiator and oil cooler mounted
under the engine. The tubes from the upper end of the nose
gear socket provide lateral support for the Schertz beam
and prevent the nose gear socket from rotating counter
clockwise (side view) in the event of a pot hole type load.
The engine has two degrees off set to the right and a 2.85:1
gear box must be used with this off set.
Only half the mount is shown.
Any comments.
--
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
I am glad you designed it for the 2.85 redrive as that is what I
was
tentatively planning on. Tracy's.
I think the nose wheel is fully castoring, but I am not sure. Can
anybody
say for sure? With a fully castoring nose wheel, is it possible to
generate
a torque about the axis of the nose gear socket? I wouldn't think
so, but
then I am just a poor ignorant software engineer (retired) . If
such a
torque were to be generated how would it be dealt with? I
understand the
tubes should be loaded only in tension or compression according to
Tony
Bingelis.
The nose wheel retention bolt is a SOB to install; it requires a
hole be
drilled in the firewall. I assume this is necessary to get the Lyc
engine CG
where it needs to be for proper W&B. Since we have info that the CG
with the
rotary was an inch behind where it was designed to be with the Lyc,
and we
have agreement that the rotary should be moved forward that inch,
does the
foregoing mean that the nose wheel tube also moves forward? If so,
would
there will be sufficient clearance to be able to install the bolt
and not
have to make a hole in the firewall? The fewer holes in the
firewall the
better IMHO. Moving the nose wheel socket forward an inch means
that the
nose wheel also moves forward an inch. Is that good, bad or
indifferent?
Does moving the nose wheel tube forward cause an interference with
some
engine part or accessory? Or do we leave well enough alone and keep
the nose
wheel socket where Van put it and simply move the engine further
away from
the firewall? Sigh. Why do apparently simple things have to be so
complicated?
No other considerations occur to me at this time.
All in all, I am delighted.
Doc
"poor ignorant software engineer" Some how I doubt that :)
If you drop the wheel down into a pot hole far enough anything is
possible.
From reading the drawings there appears to a small bolt that keeps
it aligned.
Strange that you should choose that failure mode rather than the
myriad of all other possible failure modes.
The nose gear can stay where it is.
From the side view dwg it appears that bolt has clearance.
Perhaps a capture nut is needed on the back side.
Are you talking about that little hole that says "tri gear only"?
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Some more thoughts.
The "poor ignorant software engineer" remark was real. Software
engineers, at least when I was trained, had no requirement to take
advanced math, and many other traditional engineering courses. Not
even physics. I really feel ignorant because I had no opportunity to
take things like statics and dynamics. Fortunately my undergraduate
minor was math which got me through integral calculus. I have seldom
had the need for calculus, but the others have been useful from time
to time, particularly when I was involved in computer graphics.
Software engineering is mostly about the computer, operating
systems,
and programming languages. It requires lots of common sense, and
good
logic. And the ability to quickly learn strange new things. Systems
programming and scientific programming requires one to program
things
one knows nothing about, so you get a reference or text book and
learn. I enjoyed it until about the last two or three years.
The failure mode I identified was because it looked like you had
everything else covered.
Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage
I got started in 1975 with a 4004. Then a 6502 Kim 1.
I invented and patented the light pen form of programming
used by HP on some calculators.
Calculus became obsolete when programming was invented.
FEA and CFD are good examples. IMHO every child should learn
programming in grammar school. QB was great with a huge
further development potential. Unfortunately
MS cut it short and ruined it with VB just so things
could work in the MS messed up Gui called Windows.
MS stands for Microsoft mesS :)
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Interesting.
AT&T could have marketed UNIX early on if IBM hadn't pressured
Congress into restricting AT&T's activities in the computer arena.
When the PC first came out, UNIX would probably have been a contender
if AT&T could have marketed it. They should have given it away to PC
users like they did to educational institutions. Then there would have
been no MSDOS. Yes, and if pigs could fly...
Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.