John Mininger Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 My 1977 "J" has about 2300 hours TT on the airframe and the original engine. The engine is running fine, the oil analysis is good, the oil filter looks good when opened up, and the valves look good with a borescope. So I see no reason to euthanize the engine; yet. The engine mounts on the other hand are old, tired and sagging. I'm planning to have them replaced at the next annual. Anyone have an opinion on Lord v Barry mounts? And I did read Don Maxwell's very useful piece on the shimming process. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy95W Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 Since you're probably looking at an overhauled engine sooner, rather than later, I'd use the Barry mounts and save some money. Then, when you pull the engine, use Lord mounts for the overhauled engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philiplane Posted June 19, 2019 Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 there is no difference between the brands, other than price. They are made to the specification for the application, meaning they will both use the same grade and durometer elastomeric material, and the same spacer materials. You should replace them every 5-7 years to prevent vibration damage to the airframe. Old stiff mounts transmit vibration that wrecks instruments, cracks aluminum skins, wears out aileron and elevator hinges, and the tail trim on Mooneys. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mininger Posted June 19, 2019 Author Report Share Posted June 19, 2019 Thanks guys. Phil, would you recommend replacing the engine mounts on a schedule somewhat par to the landing gear disks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 Engine mounts can sag, so there is a spec for that... rubber donuts are rubber donuts, measure the compression and replace when they are out of spec... There are a few pireps on Lord vs. Barry around here. I have seen/talked with the Lord guys at KOSH... The Barry mounts don’t get many good pireps around here... I don’t recall if there is a single reason for that...? PP thoughts only, both my engine mounts and gear donuts are Lord’s... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney in Oz Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 21 hours ago, John Mininger said: Anyone have an opinion on Lord v Barry mounts? I was given the same opinion by two mechanics as Phil advised so I ordered the Barry mounts for my upcoming annual in October. Spruce has both Lord and Barry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davidv Posted June 20, 2019 Report Share Posted June 20, 2019 May be a dumb question, but has anyone seen the avwweb video below where they talk about the acclaim engine mounts (1:30)? Is there a reason why similar mounts could not fit onto other older models? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 23, 2019 Report Share Posted June 23, 2019 Expect that the engine mount structure is designed with the rubber mount geometry... so to change one, you may need to change or modify the other as well... There are four mounts for the O... three of one type and a fourth of a different type... Tiny details, that are hard to remember after a day... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcrmckenna Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 @John Mininger I’m in need of replacing my motor mounts and was planning to go with the Barry’s to save some money. I was wondering if you ended up replacing your mounts and what brand you went with? Thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guillaume Posted November 14, 2019 Report Share Posted November 14, 2019 I replaced my 17 years old Lords with Barrys last month. They work as expected. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 I had to watch a few times to note that at 1:15-1:20 the left tail pipe is missing. Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 Clarence/Eagle Eye What did you notice first... The missing pipe, or the two plastic ties attached to the remaining exhaust parts? Being able to recognize missing parts, in a limited time frame, takes gobs of memory skills! Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2019 Report Share Posted November 15, 2019 I was waiting for the bit on the Lord mounts and caught a glimpse of the tyraps, I replayed it paying more attention. The tyraps are holding a cover on the wastegate and there is a sealing cap on the turbo. Clarence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyer338 Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) On 6/19/2019 at 6:34 AM, John Mininger said: My 1977 "J" has about 2300 hours TT on the airframe and the original engine. The engine is running fine, the oil analysis is good, the oil filter looks good when opened up, and the valves look good with a borescope. So I see no reason to euthanize the engine; yet. . . . Thanks I just finished reading Mike Busch’s three books, and in all three he makes a convincing case for ignoring TBO and continuing to run engines on condition, based on oil analysis and bore scope analysis. He ran the engines in his T310R to about twice TBO. His analysis rings true to me based on my experience as a master automotive technician and engine machinist. I realize aircraft engines are different in two major respects: they run at a higher percentage of rated power and they tend to be abused more — primarily from sitting. However, if protected from rust and given good care otherwise, airplane engines have the potential for running well past published TBO. I do not mean to hijack this thread, however there was a reply suggesting the engine will likely be rebuilt soon, and that may not be the case. Edited November 16, 2019 by flyer338 Add a comma. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmo Posted November 16, 2019 Report Share Posted November 16, 2019 20 hours ago, flyer338 said: I realize aircraft engines are different in two major respects: they run at a higher percentage of rated power Yes, but what is the rated power of a 6 (360 cu in), or, better yet, 9 (540/550 cu in) liter automotive engine these days? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyer338 Posted November 17, 2019 Report Share Posted November 17, 2019 The 3.6 liter normally aspirated V-6 engine in my Cadillac is rated at 309 hp, and the 6.9 liter diesel V-8 in my old Ford truck is rated at 135 hp. I do not have the torque specifications at hand just now. The Cadillac burns 13 lbs. per hour in cruise at 72 mph. Depending on the bfsc I calculate the engine is making between 26 and 52 hp — the higher figure is 16% power. If the engine makes it 200k miles that would be 2778 hours. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.