Re: [psas-airframe] New Cesaroni Motor Mounting
> Perhaps that, combined with the countersunk screws, and we could > avoid modifying the avionics pieces... The avionics module is bolted to the aeroshell at the bottom D blocks, and the holes for those countersunk bolts are *right* below the patch antennas so they can't be raised up. That said, we could add another set of D blocks and lift that bottom plate up, but Dave's right, it's going to get *really* tight in there. Anything we can do to avoid mucking with the avionics space would be great. Andrew -- --- Andrew Greenberg Portland State Aerospace Society (http://psas.pdx.edu/) and...@psas.pdx.edu C: 503.708.7711 --- ___ psas-airframe mailing list psas-airframe@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe
Re: [psas-airframe] New Cesaroni Motor Mounting
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 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, 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
Re: [psas-airframe] New Cesaroni Motor Mounting
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, 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
Re: [psas-airframe] New Cesaroni Motor Mounting
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] New Cesaroni Motor Mounting
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? Thanks, -Dave <>___ psas-airframe mailing list psas-airframe@lists.psas.pdx.edu http://lists.psas.pdx.edu/mailman/listinfo/psas-airframe
