In talking with Tom, another thing that occurs to me, it would be
possible to bolt a large-diameter threaded piece to the forward
closure, then put the same large diameter threaded piece (female) on
the blulkhead, and thread the whole thing into that. Imagine the
forward closure having a 2" diameter thread at the top, that bolts
thinly to the 3/8" screw in the actual forward closure. This would
take some machining effort, but is doable...

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Dave Camarillo
<dave.camari...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing you mean putting a spacer on the face of the bulkhead
> that bares the thrust of the motor. That would effectively lower the
> whole retainer assembly. We have about 0.625" of bore on the bulkhead
> that the motor casing slides into, we could probably reduce that down
> to as little as 0.2". I think a ring, that sat on the face of the
> bulkhead, and attached to the top portion would do the trick...
>
> Off the top of my head I can't think of any mechanical problems with
> this approach. Perhaps that, combined with the countersunk screws, and
> we could avoid modifying the avionics pieces...
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:09 PM,  <rq1...@q7.com> wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> Probably not understanding things as well as i should from the picture,
>> ignore me if i'm stupid, but it appears that a spacer would lower the
>> top attachment enough. Does this cause other, worse problems?
>>
>> (2012.08.12) dave.camari...@gmail.com:
>>> So I was figuring out how to mount the new motor casing in the
>>> airframe and ran into this issue (see picture). The forward closure on
>>> the new motor sits higher then the old one, and if I simply extend the
>>> retaining bracket it will interfere with the avionics.
>>>
>>> The easiest option would be to shorten the mid plate by a hole or two
>>> and move everything up, but I know that module is pretty packed. I
>>> could also use countersunk screws and/or thinner plate for the top
>>> most flat bar, which would help but wouldn't completely solve the
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> Alternately, we could skip dealing with this and just design a motor
>>> bulkhead with the strain gauge that will properly fit. (hand waving
>>> here, this is more complicated then it sounds, but there have been a
>>> couple good ideas so far).
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> psas-airframe mailing list
>> psas-airframe@lists.psas.pdx.edu
>> http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe

_______________________________________________
psas-airframe mailing list
psas-airframe@lists.psas.pdx.edu
http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe

Reply via email to