A question for other old farts

Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?

We learned that the fiberglass mounts break, saving expensive engine parts.
The beams did not.


"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

It's easier to change the thrust with the fiberglass mounts. Hmm. The old
timers say to build the plane to fly , not to crash. Light is good.

JR
"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:32:11 -0700, Geoff Sanders <geoffs@hevanet.com>
wrote:

>Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
>engine mounting beams?

You've already answered your own question in the following paragraph.

>I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines ripped off their mounts
>in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming off a hardwood mount
>that ran back through two or three formers.

The case rests, if you'll pardon the pun. Engine mounts are cheaper to
replace than engine casings or crankshafts.

>To be sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
>epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?

And then there's just the plain old time/convenience factor of glass
impregnated nylon, not to mention planar alignment, OOTB with the
Ernst or Dave Brown types so to speak.

IB

>Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
>engine mounting beams?

Following the trend towards ARF's, the bolt on engine mounts are easier to
install and change. A lot of modellers are either lazy, or don't have
time/space to build like we used to back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's. On the
plus side, they break in a crash, often saving engine parts and the fuselage
from damage. They also allow more freedom in fuselage/cowl design than fixed
beams would.

Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"

I have used both but prefer the glass mounts. It's just easier to get
things done that way plus the ability to make quick repairs and/or thrust
changes.

"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

The Goldberg Eagle 2 has wooden rails, but the engine didn't mount on them.
You screwed a piece of plywood cut into a U shape on to the rails. The
engine then mounted to this piece of plywood. This made it nice that you
could change the piece of plywood if you wanted to mount a different engine,
or your could cut the U shape with more right thrust.

But nylon engine mounts are still nicer and easier.

--
Normen Strobel
nstrobel@zoominternet.nospam.net
"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Dont think I qualify as an old fart yet, but a big advantage the nylon
mounts have over the hardwood mounts, in my opinion, is being able to drill
and tap the nylon mounts. Crank down the socket head screws, add a nylon
insert nut for a keeper and that engine will never become loose yet is easy
to remove if needed.
Would also prefer to break a mount than break a fuse or engine case.
Sometimes an improvement really IS an improvement!
--
Dan
KE6ERB
AMA605992
I've heard the screams of the vegetables...
http://fubar1.freeservers.com
"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

The Global Right Flyer 60H ARF has wooden beams.

========================================
"Fubar of The HillPeople" <Fubar1@SPAMsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:G%O1b.1485$uZ6.116827@twister.socal.rr.com...
Dont think I qualify as an old fart yet, but a big advantage the nylon
mounts have over the hardwood mounts, in my opinion, is being able to drill
and tap the nylon mounts. Crank down the socket head screws, add a nylon
insert nut for a keeper and that engine will never become loose yet is easy
to remove if needed.
Would also prefer to break a mount than break a fuse or engine case.
Sometimes an improvement really IS an improvement!
--
Dan
KE6ERB
AMA605992
I've heard the screams of the vegetables...
http://fubar1.freeservers.com
"Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

Actually, so does the 40...
"Carrell" <carrellhdelete@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aoR1b.82596$2x.25614@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.ne t...
> The Global Right Flyer 60H ARF has wooden beams.
>
> ========================================
> "Fubar of The HillPeople" <Fubar1@SPAMsocal.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:G%O1b.1485$uZ6.116827@twister.socal.rr.com...
> Dont think I qualify as an old fart yet, but a big advantage the nylon
> mounts have over the hardwood mounts, in my opinion, is being able to
drill
> and tap the nylon mounts. Crank down the socket head screws, add a nylon
> insert nut for a keeper and that engine will never become loose yet is
easy
> to remove if needed.
> Would also prefer to break a mount than break a fuse or engine case.
> Sometimes an improvement really IS an improvement!
> --
> Dan
> KE6ERB
> AMA605992
> I've heard the screams of the vegetables...
> http://fubar1.freeservers.com
> "Geoff Sanders" <geoffs@hevanet.com> wrote in message
> news:3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com...
> > Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
> > engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
> > ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
> > off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
> > sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
> > epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
> >
>
>
>

In article <3F46E03A.FA7179A8@hevanet.com>, Geoff Sanders <geoffs@hevanet.com>
writes:

>Why is it that we almost never see models built these days with hardwood
>engine mounting beams? I've seen quite a few firewall-mounted engines
>ripped off their mounts in crashes, but don't ever remember one coming
>off a hardwood mount that ran back through two or three formers. To be
>sure, fiberglass/nylon mounts don't oil soak, but neither does
>epoxy-coated wood. Whaddaya say, old-timers?
>

My Sportster 120 has beam mounts and I wish it didn't. I would like to chuck
the ST90 and install a Saito or OS FS. Due to the fit during construction, it
is not practical.


Dan Thompson (AMA 32873, EAA 60974, WB4GUK, GROL)
remove POST in address for email

"JR" <jr-ama732@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O0V1b.183235$It4.87112@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att. net...

>SNIP

> wrong with that. In my case, I don't much like instant glues and I detest
> epoxy as an adhesive. I prefer making joints that fit and using aliphatic
> resin. Most would disagree.. it's a personal thing.
>
> The knowledge from being able to use the classic methods of construction
is
> something I would not want to give up, but, using modern methods and
> materials also has merit. In today's ARF world, just showing up with a
plane
> that is built, as opposed to bought, is enough of a "WOW" factor at the
> field. Rather a sad situation.
>
> http://www.wtp.net/DBEST/trimchrt.html
>
> JR

Thanks. I was beginning to feel out of step again.

I don't recall the last time I BOUGHT CA (I generally 'win' one a year
somewhere) and I have had epoxy spoil on the shelf. Tower told me it was
over 3 years old when I called and complained that the working time on their
30 minute stuff was on the order of 4 minutes. I apologized.

>I suppose there are many of us who can still cover with silk and dope. The
>question is why? The convenience of heat shrinkable Mylar makes producing a
>beautiful finish easy,

There is NO plastic covering that will match the depth, high shine, or lustre
of a properly applied dope finish over silk. for those who know, it's like
comparing a hand-rubbed French finish on a piece of mahogany to a sprayed-on
stain and poly-u finish on a piece of pine.

>There is no such thing as a set of plans that have been "properly sorted out
>before publication".

Yes there are. Most compantie test-fly their planes before finalizing the
plans and related details. The Piranha II, which I designed and have flown for
over 10 years, has been through many changes, and the plans changed with the
plane. It's all up to date and correct, and it flys GREAT!
Dr.1 Driver
"There's a Hun in the sun!"

How many and what were the engines and engine prop combinations were tired
with the latest version of the plane? Each and every possible combination
requires exactly the same thrust? That's quite amazing. I can't wait to see
all the data.

"Dr1Driver" <dr1driver@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030824083918.22835.00000580@mb-m05.aol.com...
> Yes there are. Most compantie test-fly their planes before finalizing the
> plans and related details. The Piranha II, which I designed and have
flown for
> over 10 years, has been through many changes, and the plans changed with
the
> plane. It's all up to date and correct, and it flys GREAT!
> Dr.1 Driver
> "There's a Hun in the sun!"

Paul McIntosh wrote:

> Heat shrinkable POLYESTER.

Funny you should mention that, Paul, as I just walked in with some of it - the
UK-made stuff sold here under the Worldtex brand.

As for another poster's saying there's no such thing as a "sorted out" plan,
I'll buy your argument to a degree, but only partially. If one uses an
engine/prop combo similar in thrust and torque to what's called for in the plan,
I would certainly expect those little slidey-clicky things alongside the radio
sticks on non-computer radios to be able to trim out any variances.

Geoff