Tim Jodice Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 Why do the Continental powered long bodys need all of that framework to cradle the engine? Are K models like that? I would think dynafocal mounts like all Lycoming powered Mooneys would be lighter? I googled pictures of different airplane models and it seems like if it is a Continental it is a bed mount. Lycoming it is a dynafocal mount. I know there are exceptions but that seems to be the most popular setup. Few airplanes have one make then the other but one that I found is a Piper Seneca. Seneca 1 has Lycomings with dynafocal mounts, the Seneca 2-5 with Continentals have tube framework to cradle the continental. Why? Quote
carusoam Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 There are significant forces being handled by the engine mount... 1) Gravity 2) Thrust 3) A whole bunch of gforces sometimes... 4) A whole bunch of torque sometimes... For the four cylinder Lycoming... the four bolt dynafocal type mounts seem to be more than adequate... As the engine block gets longer with an extra pair of cylinders the different style of mount becomes a necessity... Especially as the forces and the torques increase... PP guesses only, not a mechanic... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote
Mufflerbearing Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 Being such a long block, if the IO550 had just the engine mount at the rear of the engine, the amount of stress from the ARM would be amazing I would think. 1 Quote
EricJ Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 Seems to generally be a Lycoming vs Continental thing. Most Lycomings are dynafocal and most Continentals have bed mounts underneath, at least in my observation. Quote
Tim Jodice Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Posted November 4, 2020 25 minutes ago, Mufflerbearing said: Being such a long block, if the IO550 had just the engine mount at the rear of the engine, the amount of stress from the ARM would be amazing I would think. I agree, yet Bravos, Saratoga, Comanches hang from the back. 1 Quote
Guest Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 Even the IO-720 hangs from dynafocal mounts. It does squeeze them out pretty well. Clarence Quote
N201MKTurbo Posted November 4, 2020 Report Posted November 4, 2020 Something to keep in mind, At takeoff there is about 600 Lbs. of pull applied to the front of that engine. Mounting it from the back is better for pulling than a cradle. So is the engine mount optimized for holding up the weight of the engine, or supporting the thrust of the engine? It must do both. But the thrust can be twice the weight of the engine. Quote
Tim Jodice Posted November 4, 2020 Author Report Posted November 4, 2020 1 hour ago, M20Doc said: Even the IO-720 hangs from dynafocal mounts. It does squeeze them out pretty well. Clarence That engine gives me a hard on. 1 1 Quote
carusoam Posted November 5, 2020 Report Posted November 5, 2020 Lycoming must have some good engineering for that... Even Indy cars and other assorted vehicles have used the engine case as part of the vehicle’s structure... The key words are called ‘fully stressed designs’... The engine block is designed to handle the various stresses.... PP thoughts only, not an Indy car designer... Best regards, -a- Quote
MikeOH Posted November 5, 2020 Report Posted November 5, 2020 3 hours ago, Tim Jodice said: That engine gives me a hard on. The fuel burn will fix that 2 Quote
Tim Jodice Posted November 5, 2020 Author Report Posted November 5, 2020 8 hours ago, MikeOH said: The fuel burn will fix that Can't be as bad as a twin! 1 Quote
tmo Posted November 5, 2020 Report Posted November 5, 2020 Imagine a PA30 Twin Comanche with a pair of the 720's ;-) 1 Quote
Tim Jodice Posted November 5, 2020 Author Report Posted November 5, 2020 7 minutes ago, tmo said: Imagine a PA30 Twin Comanche with a pair of the 720's ;-) You guys need to stop talking. All of this large engine talk is like reading a hustler magazine. 1 1 Quote
Andy95W Posted November 6, 2020 Report Posted November 6, 2020 13 hours ago, tmo said: Imagine a PA30 Twin Comanche with a pair of the 720's ;-) Ah yes, the short-lived Twin Comanche 800. ”Fast as hell for an hour and a half” Quote
MikeOH Posted November 6, 2020 Report Posted November 6, 2020 24 minutes ago, Andy95W said: Ah yes, the short-lived Twin Comanche 800. ”Fast as hell for an hour and a half” Meh, only an hour if you forgot to taxi on only one engine 2 Quote
carusoam Posted November 6, 2020 Report Posted November 6, 2020 I thought the twin B with a pair of 310hp IO550s was a lot of power /FF... I don’t get Hustler, but I do get the turbine edition of AOPA... very similar... Best regards, -a- Quote
Guest Posted November 6, 2020 Report Posted November 6, 2020 (edited) On 11/5/2020 at 7:45 AM, tmo said: Imagine a PA30 Twin Comanche with a pair of the 720's ;-) Would a pair of IO540’s @ 290HP each fit the Bill? Clarence Edited November 6, 2020 by M20Doc Quote
Missile=Awesome Posted November 7, 2020 Report Posted November 7, 2020 On 11/5/2020 at 9:13 PM, carusoam said: I thought the twin B with a pair of 310hp IO550s was a lot of power /FF... I don’t get Hustler, but I do get the turbine edition of AOPA... very similar... Best regards, -a- Larry F says “Hey” Quote
carusoam Posted November 8, 2020 Report Posted November 8, 2020 Larry used to have some nice jets... so if you see him... say hi back... Best regards, -a- Quote
Hank Posted November 8, 2020 Report Posted November 8, 2020 On 11/5/2020 at 6:56 AM, Tim Jodice said: You guys need to stop talking. All of this large engine talk is like reading a hustler magazine. "There is no replacement for displacement." --Big Daddy Don Garlits (and your local discount plastic surgeon . . . . ) Quote
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.