Re: more mounts
Posted: Fri Nov 01, 2002 4:59 am
'Tom Burmeister wrote:
little or nothing about airplanes or Warner engines, now a couple of
years later I am getting to know quite a bit which is good in one
way, since I be able to look after the airplane a lot better, but a
pain in others as it means everything I have learned is as a result
of something going very wrong!
I have to admit that I don't know for sure that my mounts ARE
Fairchild as although the paperwork with the airplane shows it had a
F24 mount mated to the Rearwin mount when the Warner was fitted in
1968. however, the paperwork also stated that the airplane was
airworthy when I got it and that ain't the case either . . . It also
said the weight and balance were correct and . . . I am sure some of
you know this situation all too well.
When I got the Rearwin it was without engine which had been used on a
WW1 replica (I hate it when that happens, it makes old airplanes
harder to find parts for and doesn't make the replica any more
'original') I got the airframe, engine mount and prop which is a
Hamilton Standard GA and which is for sale.
It took a while but I eventually got a replacement engine and then
set about getting it sorted out. It was only when I was preparing the
induction housing for painting that I held it up against the mount
and found it didn't line up! I called Harman Dickerson and he
conformed there are two different housings on the SS50 and SS50A.
Needless to say, I had the wrong one! The problem was that the carb
housing fouled the ring.
The mount I have has the full ring, that is a slightly squashed
circle. I checked with a fried who has a 145 Airmaster and his
mounting ring is horseshoe so I got some pictures from Gene Lehman
and eventually a drawing from Cessna that showed the Cessna mount. On
this the engine is bolted directly to the horseshoe ring and the
mount is attached to the fuselage with rubber shocks there. These are
very different to the ones I have.
What I am now doing is modifying the mount I have so that it becomes
horseshoe shaped with the engine mounting through rubber onto the
ring, so it is a combination of various styles.
I don't know too much about Fairchild's but those with the 165 Warner
have a different mount altogether, and it is not out of the question
that the 145 mount could have changed. I am going to post up a photo
of my mount so that you can see where these rubber shock fit.
regards,
Melvyn Hiscock'
This is interesting. When I started rebuilding my Rearwin, I knew>I am wondering about the pictures of the 145 mounts . My 145 Warner
>mount has round mounts . Your >picture shows the mounts to be
>oblong. Is there two different shapes of mounts for the 145 ?
little or nothing about airplanes or Warner engines, now a couple of
years later I am getting to know quite a bit which is good in one
way, since I be able to look after the airplane a lot better, but a
pain in others as it means everything I have learned is as a result
of something going very wrong!
I have to admit that I don't know for sure that my mounts ARE
Fairchild as although the paperwork with the airplane shows it had a
F24 mount mated to the Rearwin mount when the Warner was fitted in
1968. however, the paperwork also stated that the airplane was
airworthy when I got it and that ain't the case either . . . It also
said the weight and balance were correct and . . . I am sure some of
you know this situation all too well.
When I got the Rearwin it was without engine which had been used on a
WW1 replica (I hate it when that happens, it makes old airplanes
harder to find parts for and doesn't make the replica any more
'original') I got the airframe, engine mount and prop which is a
Hamilton Standard GA and which is for sale.
It took a while but I eventually got a replacement engine and then
set about getting it sorted out. It was only when I was preparing the
induction housing for painting that I held it up against the mount
and found it didn't line up! I called Harman Dickerson and he
conformed there are two different housings on the SS50 and SS50A.
Needless to say, I had the wrong one! The problem was that the carb
housing fouled the ring.
The mount I have has the full ring, that is a slightly squashed
circle. I checked with a fried who has a 145 Airmaster and his
mounting ring is horseshoe so I got some pictures from Gene Lehman
and eventually a drawing from Cessna that showed the Cessna mount. On
this the engine is bolted directly to the horseshoe ring and the
mount is attached to the fuselage with rubber shocks there. These are
very different to the ones I have.
What I am now doing is modifying the mount I have so that it becomes
horseshoe shaped with the engine mounting through rubber onto the
ring, so it is a combination of various styles.
I don't know too much about Fairchild's but those with the 165 Warner
have a different mount altogether, and it is not out of the question
that the 145 mount could have changed. I am going to post up a photo
of my mount so that you can see where these rubber shock fit.
regards,
Melvyn Hiscock'