Talk:Engine Mount: Difference between revisions
From Bondline
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Bob... have you seen any completely broken tubes around this area? | Bob... have you seen any completely broken tubes around this area? | ||
Or is it all cracks? | |||
gil A | |||
---- | |||
Gil, | |||
I've seen one with a failed tube. All the rest have cracks ranging from perhaps 1/4 the circumference of the cross tube to as much as 3/4 of the circumference. I've seen them cracked at both ends of the tube. The FAA Inspector I discussed it with suggested that the tube is there for "stabilization" and vibration control between the lower legs, and not load bearing in the sense that it carries the engine weight. | |||
--Bob | |||
-------------- | |||
Thanks Bob - it's good to know that it is not structural. | |||
Latest revision as of 05:03, 6 May 2009
Bob... have you seen any completely broken tubes around this area? Or is it all cracks? gil A
Gil,
I've seen one with a failed tube. All the rest have cracks ranging from perhaps 1/4 the circumference of the cross tube to as much as 3/4 of the circumference. I've seen them cracked at both ends of the tube. The FAA Inspector I discussed it with suggested that the tube is there for "stabilization" and vibration control between the lower legs, and not load bearing in the sense that it carries the engine weight. --Bob
Thanks Bob - it's good to know that it is not structural.
