:roll: The engine I just purchased is a 0-360 with conical mount ; actually it is Wayne Mackey engine coming off his sq2. Some guys have said that they experienced alot of vibration with the conical and some have said that even though dynafocal is smoother , they wear off the rubber bushings and everything gets loose. Is anyone of you guys running the 0-360 with conical .
Conical or dynafocal
- Thread starter robair
- Start date
irishfield
Registered User
Penetanguishene, Ontario Canada
My experience with numerous Dyno's vs Conical O-320's, on the same model airplane (rebel).. unless your ass is more sensitive than mine, I can't tell the difference when it comes to airframe vibration.
The only difference I see is more wear and tear on stuff like broken exhaust flanges, air boxes etc from the dynafocal thrashing around more than the conical. When you go Dynafocal you need to keep this extra movement in mind when building the airbox and baffle areas, etc, to give it extra room to move around. I had one that appeared to have lots of clearance on the airbox.. yet over time it actually loosened the carb bowl from the top section and at shutdown the engine would refire a few times after pulling the mixture. It was fuel being thrown out of the bowl thru the gasket gap into the venturi...
The only difference I see is more wear and tear on stuff like broken exhaust flanges, air boxes etc from the dynafocal thrashing around more than the conical. When you go Dynafocal you need to keep this extra movement in mind when building the airbox and baffle areas, etc, to give it extra room to move around. I had one that appeared to have lots of clearance on the airbox.. yet over time it actually loosened the carb bowl from the top section and at shutdown the engine would refire a few times after pulling the mixture. It was fuel being thrown out of the bowl thru the gasket gap into the venturi...
I've flown both mount types quite a bit on 180 Supercubs several years ago. Because the 0-360 has significantly more vibration and harmonic issues than the 0-320 (likely due to the longer stroke), I expected to notice a big difference between the two, but didn't.
And Irishfield brings up excellent points on building up the under-the-cowl details. This takes a lot of thought and careful attention to details.
And since you got Wayne's engine, I'll bet it's a good one, so go with that. I've seen big quality differences in engine build-ups that trump the mounts.
Keep us posted on progress, eh?
Thanks. cubscout
And Irishfield brings up excellent points on building up the under-the-cowl details. This takes a lot of thought and careful attention to details.
And since you got Wayne's engine, I'll bet it's a good one, so go with that. I've seen big quality differences in engine build-ups that trump the mounts.
Keep us posted on progress, eh?
Thanks. cubscout
bob turner
Registered User
I fly both, and cannot tell the difference. One thing you will need to do is bolt the throttle cable clamp to the engine, rather than to the engine mount. A 172 clamp is a good starting point, but will require slight modification - as I recall, it bolts to the oil sump mounting screws.
