Message-ID: <158e01c4413b$d0215da0$c8918843@7n7z201>
From: "William" <wschertz@ispwest.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-85908@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Beam Motor Mount (semi-long)
Date: Sun, 23 May 2004 17:27:41 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Thanks Bob, I saw the picture of your rear mount. I cannot come off the
center, because my plane is tri-gear. Your unit looks rugged.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob White" <bob@bob-white.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2004 12:17 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Beam Motor Mount (semi-long)


> Bill,
>
> I happend to have the MM plate laying on my kitchen table, so I weighed
> it.  It's 11 lbs with the Barry mounts.  So my excess weight is 11 lbs
> minus the weight of Tracy's flange.  I don't know what the rest of the
> tubing weighs, but it's very light.

The tripods are very light, I weighed them once, but would take some digging
to find the weights. When I next remove the engine, I am going to weigh
everything and log it on a special sheet.

> Photo of my rear MM bracket:
> http://www.bob-white.com/new_rear_mm_a.jpg
>
> There are a couple of disadvantages to the MM plate that I didn't
> consider.
>
> 1)
> It blocks the area on either side of the engine.  This is the ideal
> place for the evaporator cores.

This was a concern of mine also, leading to my decision not to use it.

> 2)
> The redrive and the motor mount are now connected.  This is a bigger
> inconvenience than the motor mount and oil pan seal being connected.  I
> can't install or remove the redrive without removing the engine.

Yes