Paul, these appear to be standard Lycoming Dynofocal mount pieces.
Steve Beckham.

Ah so! Thanks Steve. In that case they are being misused because the
softest direction is the same as the Barry mounts. Namely axial and not radial.
In an out and not side to side. Lycomings vibrate up and down and side to side
as well as torsionally. Dynafocal mounts focus on the CG of the engine
for up and down and side to side vibrations typical of horizontal opposed
piston engines. The rotary has zero vibrations in those directions so those
mounts still need to be rotated 90 degrees. They are now focused at infinity fore and aft. They are also too hard for the rotary loads.

This is not to mention the cheapest Barry versions of dynafocals  for the Skyhawk cost $75 in the wicks catalog. The Barry 2202 industrial mount does exactly the same thing made out of the exactly the same material and cost six dollars :) Jim Griswold who designed the Questair Venture knew exactly what he was doing as he also designed the Piper Malibu.

http://www.rotaryeng.net/motor.html

Of course anything or nothing will work. Perry has been flying his Long EZ with the rotary engine bolted solidly to the airframe for 15 years. He had no other choice in the years he used a ducted fan. The rotary is that smooth.

Paul Lamar

Paul,

That first photo always confuses me.
You had posted that one before. Are you sure it is not upside down?
It appears to me that I am looking at a sealing.
Could be just me though.

Regards
Rolf

It is a wall but the picture was taken at an angle that makes it look
like a ceiling. The row of small holes are for the pan bolts on
the bottom of a Lycoming or 550 Continental engine. Same idea as the
Schertz beam we use. The rear mount is off the right end.

Paul Lamar