John Myers wrote:
>
> Kelly, Lynn, others,
>
> This may be a dumb question,
It'll be the first one! <GR>
but wondering if everyone is talking the
> same location for washers. I have seen washers mounted under isolation
> mounts as it seems most are talking about but I have also seen 970's
> added under the engine mount to firewall gussets. I have used both
> locations for different purposes. One to reposition the isolation mount
> geometry and one to reposition the whole mount and engine. I know of
> one occasion where the spacer inside the mount was reduced in length to
> tighten up the isolation mount. I would think they present different
> problems and or solutions. The engine tends to change it's weight on
> the mounts during flight and moves around a lot during cranking,
> shutdown and anything other than 1 G flight. On the other hand the mount
> to firewall fit is more rigid and tends to stay where you bolt it.
> However a loose bolt or lost washer at that location is possibly more
> troublesome as the bolt size there may not be sufficient, given the
> abuse that occurs when they are loose.
The mount bolts are not as accessible (like on the inside) as the
isolators, so I typically work on the isolators. Putting washers under
one or two of the airframe bolts also stresses the steel mount. Just MHO.
>
> I also have a sagging engine and was planning on going with one or two
> 970's between the mount and firewall, but also realize that in flight
> the engine may not be sagging as much. It seems that most commenting on
> this thread are putting a 970 washer under the isolation mount but I
> don't see how that will tighten up the isolation mount without treating
> the internal spacer.
The washer goes forward of the isolator and the flat on the engine
mounting ears if you have the ring type isolator mounts. On mounts
where the isolator is cone shaped and sandwiches the mounting ear, then
the washer will be behind the isolator.
>
> I don't do any negative G stuff (on purpose anyway) and generally never
> exceed 3 to 3.5 G positive but the engine still moves around a lot with
> gyroscopic actions as well as simple G loads. Is the concensus that
> short of changing out the mounts, the best approach is to washer up the
> isolation mounts? I know the best solution would probably be to replace
> the kit iso mounts with Lord mounts but what is the consensus for next
> best solution.
>
> John Myers with a little sag with a 360 on an 8
I'd use the washer method before spending so much money on new
isolators. I've seen no difference in who makes them .... in my limited
experience. I think the consensus is ..... whatever you prefer. No
matter what route you take, the end result should be the same. Best of
luck.
Linn
>
>
>
>
>
>
