This is a winner. Losing the strut is no big deal since the ability
to fine tune engine pitch is retained.
People who are new to this list would be amazed at the five year
history of the evolution this design. Paul has probably drawn a
hundred iterations. Over time, the engine mount got better, slowly,
but it has not been easy. This mount is light, incredibly strong,
and it is OUT OF THE WAY of other engine components like the exhaust
system. This engine mount was engineered by Paul, without
compromise. Even though I have asked him on many occasions to fudge
just a little, to make things easier, most of the time he did not
seem to hear. Other times when he definitely did hear, I received a
smoking e-mail setting down the law.
This engine mount is designed to provide space to put the radiator
under the engine with a properly shaped intake plenum. To do that,
the oil pan had be redesigned and it has become a functional part of
the engine mount both because it is the anchor for the rear beam and
because of its shape. Anyone can just buy the engine mount and get
on with his conversion. No big deal now, but to those of us who have
had a part in bringing it to where it is today, this last iteration
is MAJOR.
Paul, if you have time, in the attached drawing change the center
section to 6.5 inches as we discussed and also indicate the angle
between the arms and the center piece. I want to start building the
fixture for this piece tomorrow. Thanks, Jerry
More views please...
Thanks,
Matt-
MORE VIEWS???? :) What perspective did you have in mind Matt?
Here are some shots of Bob Whites earlier version.
http://www.bob-white.com/log/index.html
We did not need the P51 style side beams then but they were key
to implementing the new design with the rear MM beam.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Paul,
I read each and every post every day, but am particularly interested in
the BD4 info you've been posting with Bob White the last few days. I
have of course saved all the emails on the BD4 up to this point. As you
do have a set of plans maybe you can give me your opinion on what I'm
thinking about. I'll be building the BD-4C with the 18" fuse stretch
and the 46" wide fuselage along with the longer metal wings. My
thinking was to use a 20B with the pPort and of course oil cooler and
water cooled engine, with alternator, cabin heat and Tracy's PSRU. I
like the high cruise speeds that the BD4 can obtain as well as the
simple building techniques. I felt that the 20B could be installed in a
more "stock" configuration compared to the 13 thus necessitating less
ancillary equipment/work for the same cruising speeds. What is your
opinion on the reasoning? I continue to educate myself on the rotary as
well as aeronautics, but definitely am still behind the curve.
Thanks again for all you do,
Allen Slominski
The stock configuration for a 20B is sequential turbo chargers and low compression.
Unfortunately this would be a disaster in short order in an aircraft as the turbos
would soon over speed and kill themselves. I would go with a p-port or a TO4 turbo
set up with a custom exhaust manifold. Also for a bit better BSFC and a bit
better power use late 2nd gen normally aspirated rotors for a higher compression
ratio if you go NA 3 rotor P-port.
Mazdatrix Rotor part number 89-92 (Non-turbo) 11-B10A-N3Y5
The 20B p-port is a real bargain as a 375 HP aircraft engine would cost
close to $50,000 and weigh more.
BTW if you put the large cooling rad under the cockpit it might heat the cabin.
Perhaps a Dodge pickup truck rad with custom tig welded aluminum end tanks.
Good or bad depending on where you live :)
You would have something better than a C206.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.
