---------------------------------------------------------- Engines-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 01/13/04: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:32 AM - Re: Re: Alternate engines (James R. Cunningham) 2. 12:27 PM - Re: Re: Alternate engines (Nielsenbe@aol.com) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:32:49 AM PST US From: "James R. Cunningham" Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Alternate engines --> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" Yes, the purpose for inverted engines is to allow normal prop positioning and ground clearance when using direct drive. You might also consider either the 440 Ranger (200 hp), or the Lom 337CE (250 hp). Note that they rotate in opposite directions. Jim Gary Casey wrote: > > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" > > < The key > word in my choice was "direct drive" and that pretty much forces the engine > to be mounted inverted, although a few have been mounted "right-side" up. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:27:44 PM PST US From: Nielsenbe@aol.com Subject: Re: Engines-List: RE: Alternate engines --> Engines-List message posted by: Nielsenbe@aol.com I have heard the biggest advantage to the PSRU is that you have two or three bearing points absorbing the shock and loads of the prop before they affect your engine. I agree the BB chevy could handle the radial loads but I don't know about longitudinal loading. It was never designed for the push/pull of the prop. I don't know of any proof to this.......that is why I am asking. Brad