I plan on installing the 180 HP Penn Yan engine on my supercub with a dynafocal engine mount. Anybody had any experience with this mod or with the opne keeping the conical engine mount ?
I plan on installing the 180 HP Penn Yan engine on my supercub with a dynafocal engine mount. Anybody had any experience with this mod or with the opne keeping the conical engine mount ?
There was a discussion on this subject on another thread. Seems to me the conclusion was the Penn Yann with the dynafocal mount was the smoothest running.
Steve Pierce
"When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it."
Henry Ford
Mr. Pierce,
Interesting you should mention the 'Dynafocal' mount -- I'm just now looking at a Lycoming Piston Aircraft Engines brochure (Data Pak) which states the following:
Conical -- Straight mounts parallel to crankshaft
Dynafocal -- Mounts set at a specified angle to the crankshaft with a Type 1 (30 degrees) and a Type 2 (18 degrees)
Bed -- Bed mounting available on select engine models.
Is one of these mounts more appropriate for a SuperCub than the other (i.e., type 1 vs. type 2)? Would the rated horsepower of the engine determine the type of engine mount, or would it be determined by the engine model (e.g., O-360-A### takes type # and O-360-B### takes type #)? Finally, are the mounts marked in some fashion so one can determine which type one has?
Thanks in advance for your consideration,
Musket
I installed the 180 engine from penn yan with they dynafocal mount. It was installed on a pa12, but I'm very pleased with how it runs, and it is very smooth. Of course on start up and shut down it shakes a bit, but thats to be expected.
PA12Tray: Did you use Charlie's conversion or get a field approval? I just finished installing the PennYan 180hp conversion on my PA-18 but haven't fired it up yet. Crash
Crash
Have you done a Weight and Balance yet? Which engine did you use?
Frank
removed
The Pen Yann conversion with the O-360-C4 engine uses the original 150 hp engine mounts. If you use the O-360 -A4P, A4M or A4A they provide a new dynafocal engine mount.
I used Charlie Centers STC for the install, only had to get Field approval for different pitch prop (43) and the alternator kit. Originally was going the route of developing my own STC but after about the 3rd time the feds changed what they wanted me to do I gave up and got the STC from Charlie.
What Airbox is being used on the O-360 conversions?
Frank
The Penn Yan conversion supplys an airbox that they build. It is like the stock airbox only a little bigger and separated from the air filter mount by a short piece of 4" scat hose used as a vibration dampener to the bottom cowl.
Crosswind STOL's conversion uses a Cherokee 180 airbox that is cut in half, rotated 90 degrees and rewelded. Carb heat is kind of strage, a linkage operating a linkage.
I am not sure what Cub Crafters uses. I think it is either the same as a stock O-320 airbox or an enlarged version of it. Crash
delete
Penn Yan was $22,800.00 (factory new O-360 A4P) if you bought their conversion ($4,000.00), or you could get one of their O-320 converted engines (converted to an O-360 with a new O-360 crank and ECI Titans) for $16,000.00. Cubcrafters was much higher when I priced out the entire package last year at this time. They also wanted to shove a conical mount on me. I went with a dynafocal after all the long timers with experience on both mounts convinced me. Crash
I have had very few problems with the Penn Yann conversion and the dynofocal mount. Now with the leading edge exhaust available its' performance should match Charlie Centers conversion without the extra expense. The biggest problem I have had is that it tends to run cool in the winter. During the decision process, everyone with experience both ways said to go dynafocal.
Of the three STC'd PA-18 O-360-180hp conversions, Crosswinds STOL is 100% dynagfocal, Penn Yan is either way, Cub Crafters always pushes the conical mount. Crash
Anyone looking at the 180 conversion? I have an O-360-A4A (dynafocal mount), 3900TT, 1235 SFOH, all accessories. PM or email me.
"Sometimes a Cigar is just a Cigar"
I think I remember correctly from the old CC chat page, that the reason for CC pushing the straight mount is the weight penalty of the dynafocal.
The difference was quite a few pounds, I don't remember how many. Anybody?
I had them both and the difference was about 4 lbs with all the rubbers etc. as I recall. Crash
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks