Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:31 AM - Re: Dynafocal Rings (William Bernard)
2. 02:00 PM - Re: Dynafocal Rings (Jim and Donna Clement)
Message 1
| 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: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Jim, From what I can tell, the rubber mounts are down tight. The 7/16" bolts
can pull a lot! The bolts were not unduly difficult to insert, but it did
require a bit of lifting of the engine to get the lower ones in. I found
that I had to insert the top two bolts first and then the lower ones by
raising the case slightly using a hydralic jack. The bolts then went in with
only light tapping with a plastic mallet.
The bolts pulled up snug and all the mating surfaces appear to be in contact
their full diameter. I cannot see into the center of the mount ring, so
there may be some misalignment there. The most visible 'defect' is the
observation that the rubber mounts are not compressed evenly.
I'm pretty sure that the mount was not off of a twin. I got the whole mount
(damaged, but the ring was intact) and so was able to determine that it came
off of a single engine of some type.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: 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>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>; <TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com>
> 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 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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Dynafocal Rings |
--> Tailwind-List message posted by: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
Some lord rubber mounts have a set position, like top left side and so on.
Different part numbers for each in a set. Were they used with the mount? Try
matching them up tops and bottoms. Twin Comanche is the only one that I know
of that uses the type 2. You must have the right one, the rubber mounts are
a mixed set. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings
> --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard"
<billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> Jim, From what I can tell, the rubber mounts are down tight. The 7/16"
bolts
> can pull a lot! The bolts were not unduly difficult to insert, but it did
> require a bit of lifting of the engine to get the lower ones in. I found
> that I had to insert the top two bolts first and then the lower ones by
> raising the case slightly using a hydralic jack. The bolts then went in
with
> only light tapping with a plastic mallet.
>
> The bolts pulled up snug and all the mating surfaces appear to be in
contact
> their full diameter. I cannot see into the center of the mount ring, so
> there may be some misalignment there. The most visible 'defect' is the
> observation that the rubber mounts are not compressed evenly.
>
> I'm pretty sure that the mount was not off of a twin. I got the whole
mount
> (damaged, but the ring was intact) and so was able to determine that it
came
> off of a single engine of some type.
>
> Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim and Donna Clement" <168x@merr.com>
> To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: 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>
> > To: <tailwind-list@matronics.com>; <TailwindForum@yahoogroups.com>
> > 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! --
|