Le 01/03/2011 18:18, Peter Zutrauen a crit :
> 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
> <mailto:ptiller@lolacars.com>> wrote:
>
> <ptiller@lolacars.com <mailto:ptiller@lolacars.com>>
>
> 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
>
>
> ==========
> target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Europa-List
> ==========
> http://forums.matronics.com
> ==========
> le, List Admin.
> ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ==========
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Hi Phil,
Do you nhave pictures of a new design?
Thanks
--
Michel AUVRAY
l
-----(*)-----
|
