It would seem the obvious solution to incorporate the dynafocal mounts into the front end housing
and be done with it. Then the 13B would be well on it's way to being "normal" in more aircraft
applications.
...Chrissi

We choose the center housing as it is the simplest to make and we can
porous chrome one steel side and harden the other steel side as a back to back test.

Using a separate water pump simplifies the front end housing.

Paul Lamar

Chrissi is right about incorporating the mount into the front housing.
 Even experimental builders are still pilots & there's a deep seated
conservatism, almost superstition in their resistance to anything new.
 One of my neighbors just told me, with great excitement, that he will
soon be able to mount a Franklin 125 hp a/c engine on his Cessna 150 by
bolting it directly to his existing Continental engine mount & closing
the holes in the cowl for the Continental exhaust pipes. Minimal changes
but vastly improved performance.

If you can give just the *appearance* of minimizing the changes
required, you will acquire many more converts. Builders are acclimated
to moving a battery to adjust  cg issues but a motor mount change
*feels* like a major change. On RV's (except the -8), it actually is a
major change due to the landing gear.  Also, the Lyc style mount gets
the mount tubes away from the sides of the engine, freeing that area for
intake/exhaust & cooling systems. Cowl length can be handled with
sheetmetal extensions to the fuselage instead of fiberglas work for
people like Tracy (& me) who hate glass work.

I don't think that the dynafocal mount  is needed. It's my understanding
that the Dynafocal was conceived to  control the horrible shake of the
Lyc. In order for it to work properly, the 'focus' has to be at the
vertical & horizontal cg of the powerplant package. It seems unlikely
that either of the Lyc dyna type mounts will hit the rotary package's
cg. It also seems unnecessary with the rotary's smooth operation. Dyna
mount rubbers are *much* more expensive and more difficult to install
than the old conical style mounts.  If custom mounts are required for a
particular homebuilt, the conical mounts are much simpler to fabricate
than the dyna style mounts.

Thoughts?

Charlie

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.