For SansAnhedral.
I can almost guarantee Ti studs were originally used for weight issues.
I am not so sure. Ti also has superior corrosion resistance, and if the S-92 was expected to be sold to maritime environment operators, that consideration (as well as dissimilar metal interface issues where the studs seat in the mag housing) may also have been a factor. At that order of magnitude, the weight of three Ti studs or Steel Studs looks negligible ... however, if as you say it was financially incentivized, perhaps the material selection was, for that reason, more heavily weighted than would otherwise have been the case. (Sorry for that poor pun
). A lot of little fractions of a pound saved here and there add up to pounds saved from the transmission deck ... and thus not passed into the airframe via the xmission mount ... and so on.
During a period of time during work on the CH148 production modification SAC was willing to pay the engineering teams multiple thousands of dollars worth of engineering hours per pound saved...especially from the dynamic system. The 92 was seemingly perpetually overweight.
Every helicopter does the weight battle for that ten pounds here and the fifty pounds there during design, does it not? It's a never ending battle and series of compromises.
FWIW, I don't see the oil filter bowl as part of the dynamic system ... I see from the swashplate to the ends of the rotor blades as the dynamic system, but perhaps I misunderstand what you are referring to there. Are you referring to "the dynamic system" as being that load of stuff mounted to the transmission deck, and thus vibrating as soon as the rotors start to turn?
And its laughable to consider the gearboxes/oil filter arrangement of the 92 versus UH60 as being one-in-the-same.
For one thing, the filter on the 60 is mounted vertically, not cantilevered off the side of the MGB casting shaking on giant moment arm with the 1P.
I think the term you seek is "one and the same" but I caught your drift.
shaking on giant moment arm with the 1P
"Giant?" (do you mean that in reference to the cross section of the bolt?)
and why the 1P rather than the 4P?
I agree with your point on the stress analysis having to consider vibration and loads differently than with the sump mounted filter in the Hawk series ...
