Jerry Hey wrote:

Paul,  I am going to build a Kiss Cruiser Schertz Beam engine
mount.
Could you determine in your CAD program if the 32.5 inch
(overall)
beam
will clear the cowl?  BTW it does clear the Tailwind cowl by
1.5
inches.  Most cowls are more spacious than the TW.   Do you
have a
drawing on hand of the Long EZE that you could check for same?
If
it
fits the Kiss and the Long EZE, then it will fit anything.
Thanks,
Jerry

Jerry Hey
j-winddesigns@thegrid.net

I don't have a good 3D model of the Cruiser cowl. Best thing I
could
do is

mock

it up with a piece of wood and see if my cowl fits over it. My
guess
is it

would fit.

One point. The Schertz beam lowers the position of the rubber
bushings

relative

to the engine compared to the motor plate method so it might
get
them down

in

the area of the cowl that starts to curve under the engine. I
assume
that

Bill

Schertz's cowl fits over his Schertz beam. In that case it
should
fit.

Bill

is that true?

BTW there are two cruiser cowls both Bill Schertz and I have
the
early

short ones

as I recall. I think there is a later longer one. Charlie what
is
the

distance

from firewall to prop flange on your Cruiser cowl? Also Charlie
check

these

Cruiser firewall mounting points dimensions carefully. Since
Charlie
is

not

that far from you perhaps he can bring his cowl down.

I don't have much on the Long EZE. I'll check.

Paul Lamar

I just called up my drawing, and the center to center distance
on
the
barry
mounts is 27 inches.

Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045

If you need more turbo clearance than that length provides Jerry
I
suggest a P51 beam type
mount as in this 3D.

Paul Lamar

Looking at the 3D image,  it looks as if we can make the Schertz
Beam
sufficiently narrow to avoid all cowl conflicts.  The turbo would
be
above the mount tubes and normal exhaust could be routed outside
and
around the motor mount tubes.  Do you agree?   Is there any reason
why
we could not adapt this design for all engine mounts?  If we
could,
then Ed could design and produce exhaust systems that would fit in
every case.  It would be a MAJOR break through. Paul,  could you
look
at this from all angles in Rhino?  (I seem to make this request
just
about every day.)      Maybe, within a few hours we will be able
to
finally put engine mount and exhaust system design in the DONE
file.
    Jerry

Jerry Hey
j-winddesigns@thegrid.net

Yes I obviously agree Jerry :)

Paul Lamar

  Paul,  FYI, I just installed the little 15 prototype beam on my
engine
so that I could extend it out with a straight edge.  Assuming that
the
distance from the edge of the pan flange to the firewall is 5
inches,
then a 22 inch minimum  center to center beam will be needed for the
lower engine mount tubes  to clear the pan.         Jerry

Jerry Hey
j-winddesigns@thegrid.net

I am not following you Jerry. Can you send a picture?

Paul Lamar

Paul, the question I was trying to resolve is how narrow can the
Schertz Beam be?  The limiting factor is that the tubes running from
the Barry mounts to the center of the firewall have to clear the oil
pan.  I put my engine on the bench.  Using a firewall to engine
clearance of 5" (measured from the edge of the pan flange) it was easy
to determine that a minimum distance between Barry Centers would be
22.5 inches.  Using the P-51 design,  the Schertz beam width can be
from 22.5 inches to??? consistent with ample room to route the
exhaust.
    Jerry

If we are talking about a Kis Cruiser the tubes slope down towards
the fire wall. Will work with the stock oil pan too.

The P51 beam type mount will work with any width Schertz beam as long
as all the tubes that make up the beam lie in a flat plane.

Paul Lamar

Yes it is true that any length beam (up to 27 inches) will work for the
Kiss Cruiser.  That is because one can attach the lower tubes anywhere
along the firewall.   But  for aircraft that do not have a very strong
hard point at the bottom center  of the firewall such as the RVs,
Tailwinds and Mustang IIs, BD4s   it is a different story.   For these,
  we have been using the X brace under the engine which is a slick
solution.  Thank you. You are the designer.

    If the Schertz Beam is too narrow, the X brace will interfere with
the sides of the pan.  The Schertz beam has to be be wide enough to
avoid this problem.   On the other hand, with  the P-51 mount,  the
exhaust pipes have to run on the outside of the engine mount and still
clear the cowling, therefore  a narrower Shertz beam is advantageous.
Someplace between too narrow and too wide, is heaven. I am hoping  you
can tell me where that is.    If  we get this nailed down, even though
minor variations will exist from aircraft to aircraft, Ed will be able
to  provide an exhaust system  compatible with the engine mount.
Attached is photo of [the distorted]  X Brace engine mount.     Jerry

  PS:  I just had a thought,     The weld bushings under the Barry
mounts on the Schertz beam  are so low that it would be possible to run
the [distorted] X brace under the pan.  I just checked to make sure this is true.
No interference problems at all.  A  very short  beam could be used
that would leave plenty of room for the exhaust.

Jerry Hey
j-winddesigns@thegrid.net

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.