Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:32 AM - Re: Drain Holes (Ruhnke, Mike)
2. 04:49 AM - Dynafocal Rings (William Bernard)
3. 04:52 AM - Re: Drain Holes (William Bernard)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: Dynafocal Rings (Jim and Donna Clement)
5. 05:27 AM - Re: Dynafocal Rings (Boud Kuenen)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Ruhnke, Mike" <ruhnkem@rayovac.com>
Bruce, I'm using PolyFiber. Is this one hole per rib?
Mike
Do Not Archive
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
I've noticed something about the way my engine mounts and I wonder if it is anything
to worry about or fix.
The engine (O-320-E2A) is mounted on a dyafocal ring that is supposed to be off
of a Cessna 172. I got the ring a couple of years ago from a salvage yard. The
engine went on with only the usual difficulties. The observation is that the
rubber mounts are compressed unevenly - more on one side that the other for each
mount.
Comparing the ring on the Mustang II ( where the engine was previoulsy mounted)
shows that the angles of the mount pads are different, being focused to a point
further forward on the Cessna mount ring.
I know there are Type I and Type II rings, and I've also read that Cessna used
a different ring on the mount for the new production 172s.
Does anyone know how to tell the difference between the different types of mount
rings? Is the asymetric compression of the mount rubbers anything to worry about,
or do I need to be building a new engine mount?
Thanks for the opinions.
Bill
N40WB
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Mike, it's two holes per rib, one on either side. I suppose it's possible to
get by with one hole on the ourboard side of the rib. (Any water that got in
would run down the trailing edge to the next rib and be removed by the drain
hole there.)
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ruhnke, Mike" <ruhnkem@rayovac.com>
Subject: RE: Tailwind-List: Drain Holes
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Ruhnke, Mike" <ruhnkem@rayovac.com>
>
> Bruce, I'm using PolyFiber. Is this one hole per rib?
>
> Mike
>
> Do Not Archive
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynafocal Rings |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
Bill, I don't know for sure about the new Cessna's, but the old ones should
fit. Maybe they gave you a mount from a twin Comanche, they have a different
angle than the E2D. If it is the wrong one, I would think the bolts would be
real difficult to get through the holes in the engine. Are you sure the
rubber mounts are seating evenly in the mount? Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
<billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I've noticed something about the way my engine mounts and I wonder if it
is anything to worry about or fix.
>
> The engine (O-320-E2A) is mounted on a dyafocal ring that is supposed to
be off of a Cessna 172. I got the ring a couple of years ago from a salvage
yard. The engine went on with only the usual difficulties. The observation
is that the rubber mounts are compressed unevenly - more on one side that
the other for each mount.
>
> Comparing the ring on the Mustang II ( where the engine was previoulsy
mounted) shows that the angles of the mount pads are different, being
focused to a point further forward on the Cessna mount ring.
>
> I know there are Type I and Type II rings, and I've also read that Cessna
used a different ring on the mount for the new production 172s.
>
> Does anyone know how to tell the difference between the different types of
mount rings? Is the asymetric compression of the mount rubbers anything to
worry about, or do I need to be building a new engine mount?
>
> Thanks for the opinions.
>
> Bill
> N40WB
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynafocal Rings |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Boud Kuenen" <bkuenen@horizonaero.com>
Bill,
The difference between the 2, is the point at which the extended center line
of each of the holes converge. The most common one and the one you need for
the E2A engine is the type "A". On this mount, the holes converge at a
point which is at the center of gravity of the engine. The other type (B)
is used only on the O-320-B series engines. On this one, the holes converge
at a point in the center of the prop flange.
Boud Kuenen
NX888WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
<billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I've noticed something about the way my engine mounts and I wonder if it
is anything to worry about or fix.
>
> The engine (O-320-E2A) is mounted on a dyafocal ring that is supposed to
be off of a Cessna 172. I got the ring a couple of years ago from a salvage
yard. The engine went on with only the usual difficulties. The observation
is that the rubber mounts are compressed unevenly - more on one side that
the other for each mount.
>
> Comparing the ring on the Mustang II ( where the engine was previoulsy
mounted) shows that the angles of the mount pads are different, being
focused to a point further forward on the Cessna mount ring.
>
> I know there are Type I and Type II rings, and I've also read that Cessna
used a different ring on the mount for the new production 172s.
>
> Does anyone know how to tell the difference between the different types of
mount rings? Is the asymetric compression of the mount rubbers anything to
worry about, or do I need to be building a new engine mount?
>
> Thanks for the opinions.
>
> Bill
> N40WB
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|