The book p/n is a 2975 and they’re a little unusual because they have a 3/16” bore and are a 1/4-28 male thread on the other end. Some have been changed to REM4T rod ends(1/4” hole) with reducer bushings to make them work. The brantly book specifically allows this on some rod ends(noting for example that Brantly p/n ##### is just a REM4T or whatever with reducer bushings). However I found a comment(from memory I think this was in SI/SL #9) that the teflon rod ends (which the R designates) can be used everywhere BUT the tail rotor pitch links. What is your opinion on the tolerances and possible speculation on why the teflon ones would not be allowed there? My tail rotor has the new style longer pitch change links(2.87 inches or so from memory) which take the 2975 not the 325-20 rod ends. Obviously the 2975 must be shorter since the pitch change link is longer. Any equivalent numbers? Does anyone have a opinion why teflon rod ends were approved as replacements everywhere but the tail rotor pitch change links? Perhaps that has been superceded but not published since but with an orphan machine it's hard to find such stuff out. Some of the former Brantly factory guys might know but I've been unable to make contact with them. This is not as trivial as it sounds since there are so many different rod ends with alignment specs as well as radial and axial load specs. Somewhere someone probably knows what a 2975 is in Heim or Aurora numbers. Spruce has a Heim p/n M34-14M that is close(not sure if the threaded shank would have to be trimed slightly due to the longer pitch link) but can't get a definitive answer.
Posts: 322
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:35 pm