I've lightly attached a mount to a RAM 1000. The gap shown in the attached pics, in my limited experience, seems too large. Am I wrong?

Bart

Hey Bart,

That is difinitely too large a gap, in fact there shouldn't be a gap at all. You want to make sure that the mount is snug and tight against the turbine. Do a search
here in RCU for turbine installation and you'll find a ton of pictures that you can use as references. You can contact the guys at RTI to get a replacement mount for your
engine.
What kind of airplane are you putting it into?

What!??

I disagree, the gap on the mount has nothing to do with the installation, or very little anyway. What's important is that it holds the engine well, and then secondary, once installed in the jet, that you are centered down the pipe, or not important in a boomerang, or roo type install, open engine so to speak.

That gap would not scare me the least. Just make sure it's tight and go!

I would think that the airframe flanges would need to be on the same plane and on the centerline of the turbine. This is not what the below photo shows...

To center it just flip it 180 degrees and shim the mount to center the thrust line. Scott

I'd adjust the gap to be even on both sides and then shim the mount to your rails for proper alignment with the pipe, like Sean said the gap is really not important at all.

kc

Both of the engine mounting tabs are pointing down. It looks like you have a mount for a smaller engine (500 maybe ??). You can band aid it and make it work, maybe, but for a few bux, you can get a proper mount and have zero issues..................

Here is a picture from my Roo, no gap.

I'm returning the mount and go with this;
http://dreamworksrc.com/catalog/prod...roducts_id=529

Ah man, it just went up $4 today. Todd have you been reading this thread???

Thanks to all for your responses.

Regards,
Bart

Hey Sean,

I agree with you that it will work if installed that way but I don't think (my .02cents) it's the ideal situation to have. My concern is the lack of surface to surface contact to spread the tension. From the pics it looks like there is a lot of 'pull' pressure on just the head of that bolt. I kind of think of it the same way as a glue joint..I guess I'll just 'feel' better knowing that all my surfaces are 100% tight.

Happy flying.

P.S is it true that Texas is planning on building a super highway 4 football fields wide?

so if the clamp came completely together there would be less 'pull' on the bolt head???

kc

Hey KC,

I don't know if it's actually less pressure but it would be interesting to know what the different turbine manufacturers would have to say on the subject.. would they recommend this as an ideal install?? As I said earlier I think it would work as-is I just don't think it would be the 'highest and best use' of that mount/turbine combination.

the advantage to having it gap-less is there can be no excessive clamping pressure on the turbine, ideally you want the clamp to be that, but you can use a gapped one with no problems as long as you don't get carried away with the clamping pressure (a screw applies allot of force, it's a simple machine ya know). personally if i had a setup with excessive gap I'd make bushings to put between the upper and lower bracket or as you did, go with a different clamp.

FWIW the bolts actually have more tensile force (pull) applies when they are 'bottomed out' and snug.

kc

KC,

Good discussion. Great idea on the bushing.