In a message dated 2/14/2003 7:44:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
Well, If it's not one thing, it's something else!! Here goes my opinion on
this:
> On my speedwing monowheel, i plan on installing a 914, with CS.
>
> I spoke to Bill Lockwood, from Lockwood Aviation in FL for some time
> bout the rotax motors.
>
> Any viabbarion kills the redrive. Unbalanced carbs, idle too slow and
> "MOTORMOUNTS THAT ARE TOO SOFT!"
>
@@@@@@ First, I don't know what you mean by "redrive". Are you referring
to the gear box?
> I am not an expert. I never saw a 914 mount in my hand.
>
> But Bill is suppsedlly an expert and says that 0200 mounts are a bad
> thing.
>
> He said use the provided mounts, idle 1800RPM min, sync carbs exact both
> low speed and high and have prop dynamic balanced.
>
@@@@On this subject, since the only adjustment I know of is the setting of
the throttle cable, I don't see where you can adjust both high and low RPM
carb balance. I will have the prop balanced. 1800 rpm is way too high for
landing this airplane, in my opinion. If vibration is bad, the vibration is
terrible with the stock mounts. To me, the more flexible mounts should allow
absorbtion of energy and reduce any loads on the engine.
> Here is his exact quote:
>
> "Motors like to be mounted fairly rigid, he is not real thrilled with
> continental 0-200 Lord mounts if they are softer"
>
@@@@@@@@@ This doesn't make sense to me. In all engine I have worked with -
both aircraft and auto, the goal is to relplace engine mounts when they get
stiff with age. I can't see where a hard engine mount would help the engine.
If this were true, why not just hard bolt the engine to the airframe! Could
it be that these are not mounts that are sold by Rotax? Do thtey have service
proiblems directly related to softer engine mounts? Engine mounts do not
cause vibration - they absorb vibrational energy. Another point - these are
aircraft engine mounts used on continental engines. What is different about a
rotax and what is thte physical reason that softer mounts are "bad"? I am not
a big fan of broad sweeping conclusions without supporting details.
> This is per a conversation 12-30-2002.
>
> I am only repeating what he said.
>
> Any other comments to the contrary?
>
Dave
A227
|