Bubblehead
Well Known Member
I think the Larry Vetterman system of hose and end fittings for suspending the exhaust collector and pipe works really well with his system but a couple years ago I changed to an AWI 4 into 1 system and did not like their cable system so adapted Larry's system to the AWI exhaust.
Every time I have the cowling off I look at the hoses and generally one is loose and not supporting the pipe at all. The adel clamps also work back and forth on the motor mounts a bit and I never felt they had a location where they would stay. In fairness to Larry, that problem is caused not by his system but because I did not add the 3rd hose and fittings that keep the spacing right.
Here's the original setup I had. Sorry it is a little fuzzy but it shows the system "as was."
I am trying something different now that will maintain some upward bias to the system and still allow for differential movement between the engine, motor mount and exhaust.
The springs came from a local farm and ranch focused hardware store. I used the self-bonding tape to protect the motor mount from the clamps. The whole system seems more stable. The clamps want to stay at the base of the tubes.
In looking at the exhaust system once the slip joints and swivel joints lock up a little the system is rigid to the cylinders. While I don't like the cylinders having to take loads when some vertical g's try to move the collector down, it's really a rigid system that is probably unaffected by either Larry's system or mine or the cable system.
Any thoughts on pros and cons of each system?
BTW the springs were carefully chosen by the "BR" engineering system. BR = "'bout right."
Every time I have the cowling off I look at the hoses and generally one is loose and not supporting the pipe at all. The adel clamps also work back and forth on the motor mounts a bit and I never felt they had a location where they would stay. In fairness to Larry, that problem is caused not by his system but because I did not add the 3rd hose and fittings that keep the spacing right.
Here's the original setup I had. Sorry it is a little fuzzy but it shows the system "as was."
![1262337717_Tb3QCvv-S.jpg](/community/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ftangodelta.smugmug.com%2FAirplanes%2FExhaust-Support-2011-0421%2FDSCN0727%2F1262337717_Tb3QCvv-S.jpg&hash=4773d8a247443b7294bd19f048b2d786)
I am trying something different now that will maintain some upward bias to the system and still allow for differential movement between the engine, motor mount and exhaust.
![1262337696_Fz9qk88-S.jpg](/community/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ftangodelta.smugmug.com%2FAirplanes%2FExhaust-Support-2011-0421%2FDSCN0730%2F1262337696_Fz9qk88-S.jpg&hash=7dfbcf7ed1f960049f62d4c5a4f09d04)
The springs came from a local farm and ranch focused hardware store. I used the self-bonding tape to protect the motor mount from the clamps. The whole system seems more stable. The clamps want to stay at the base of the tubes.
In looking at the exhaust system once the slip joints and swivel joints lock up a little the system is rigid to the cylinders. While I don't like the cylinders having to take loads when some vertical g's try to move the collector down, it's really a rigid system that is probably unaffected by either Larry's system or mine or the cable system.
Any thoughts on pros and cons of each system?
BTW the springs were carefully chosen by the "BR" engineering system. BR = "'bout right."