Lazair.com

I posted this on yahoo as well for all.

[b]Carel who ever you are, I wish you luck but i certainly hope you
have done some research into aeronautical engineering and possibly
hold a degree to prove me wrong.

Nice looking pic but those are nasty three bladers.
your pic i re posted on this forum cause if will not be moderated by
dipshits that have no effing clue.

What is your thrust now ? near double i bet. plus your prop is
pulling from well below the centreline of thrust which puts one hell
of a strain on the nacelles not to mention the 2 - 3/16" bolts you
have got holding them on.

I do appoligize for being forward but i will speak up when i feel
somethin is unsafe. AS LARGER RUDDERVATORS for LARGER ENGINE THAT
IS A NO NO !!!!

BUT DON't LISTEN TO ME CASUE I NOT AN EXPERT BUT I AM A PILOT AND
THERE IS NO FRIGGIN WAY I OWULD FLY YOUR BIRD UNLESS I SEEN THE
MODS MY SELF ADN AS IT WAS BEING DONE:>

GOOD LUCK AND LET GOD BE WITH YOU !!!!


CARELAIR <===== PLEASE GOD , DO NOT LET ME READ ABOUT HIM IN THE
NEWSPAPER or the www.ntsb.gov database.

Shorty on the Warpath again see. Guess I gonna have to put a close watch on you.

Can anyone comment on Shorty's thoughts?

I for one will agree that with out proper structural and flight testing you are a guinne pig .


Can anyone elaborate on 103 rules for gas tanks as well. Not sure this will be within the guidelines now.


But Carel look NICE !! Real impressive !!

Carel come over here and discuss what mods you have done.



Lazair

it seems to me that people have been flying on redrive 185's with 44" props for 20 years in British Columbia. The fact that the thrust centreline is actually lower will help reduce pitch/thrust sensitivity in my mind.

of course, simply my opinion! I think they look sweet and will work fine - we're not flying the space shuttle here with ultra-fine tolerances.

I would however hope that Carel incorporated the "long bolt" modification to his engine mounting strategy, and incorporated a method of distributing the new longitudinal torque about the D-cell from the hefty amount of additional off-centre thrust - could be in the form of the extra plate on the top and bottom that is added as part of the long bolt mod. But if his craftsmanship is any indication, i think its all great.

I say giver Carel.

Tyler

Tyler , Sounds good.

Maybe Carel would be kind enough to come over and shares his thoughts on his retrofit.


Carel ... come on down ...


PS I promise to keep shorty on a noose and if you feel offeneded by anything he posted on yahoo let me know as i have the control to remove posts.


Lazair

That offset thrust line is a bit of a concern, not for trim, but for the bending load
that will be applied to the bolts and wing structure, by the new centreline of thrust not being equal, and a bending moment that is now introduced.

Does anyone know how much thrust in lbs that engine will deliver.

It may not be significant, but it would be nice to find out while on the ground, what
additional stress there will be and where.

Lets see if we can come up with something concrete for Carel, so he can be safe.

Perhaps someone anonymous can give us the calculation, and the rest of us can anonymously validate it, and give Carel some anonymous advice.

I wonder af a laywer has ever sucessfully sued anonymous?????