Wouldn't the same issue with hammering out of the holes (if not an
interference fit) still apply to the two drive pins?
Just curious,
Pete
A239
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM, flyingphil2 <ptiller@lolacars.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Rowland,
>
> With regards to the new re-designed torque tube then I have one of these.
> As Roger put it to me, the new torque tube no longer has any torque.
>
> Basically the whole design has been beefed up and there are now only 2 pins
> involved, not 4, see attached photo.
>
> My main concern when I received this was the weight increase. My numbers
> are below:
>
> Old Tube:
>
> TP4 - 1350g
> 2 x TP5 & TP6 - 270g
> TP9 - 200g
> 2 x TP12 - 800g
> Total = 2.620kg or 5.776lb
>
> New Tube:
>
> TP4 - 1330g
> 2 x TP5 & TP6 - 330g
> TP9 - 1250g
> 2 x TP12 - 1060g
> Total = 3.970kg or 8.752lb - 52% above original.
>
> NB. (Pat Tunney's clamps would add 0.4kg bringing an original assembly to
> 3.0kg).
>
> My mind was originally put at rest when I was told that monos (or
> conventional taildraggers as my aircraft is likely to be) like having an aft
> c of g and so this additional weight at the back would be ok. I tried not
> to think about it too much and decided it would be ok ......
>
> Hope that helps.
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=332375#332375
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/torque_tube_2_109.jpg
>
>
|
