---------------------------------------------------------- Tailwind-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 08/22/03: 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:31:57 AM PST US From: "William Bernard" Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" 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" > To: ; > Subject: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings > > > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:00:30 PM PST US 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> 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" Subject: Re: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > 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: > 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" > > To: ; > > Subject: Tailwind-List: Dynafocal Rings > > > > > > > --> Tailwind-List message posted by: "William Bernard" > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > >