Page 1 of 1
dynafocal vs. conical
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:17 pm
by Murray & Carol
Hi Gang:
The dynafocal allows quite a bit of movement which may be easier on the firewall attach points. One needs more allowance in the cowling for this movement, maybe it shakes so much parts fall off. The lord mounts are very $$$$.
The conical has less engine movement. Maybe more stress on the engine mount. I've heard that the rubbers need replacing more often, but the price is right.
Is one easier to install than the other? Does one cost less to instsall? Is one faster or easier to install?
All suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Plugging along,
REBEL 505
dynafocal vs. conical
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:17 pm
by Walter Klatt
I use the conical mount on my 0320 Rebel. Supposedly it vibrates the airframe more than a dynafocal type, but have not found that a problem at all with mine. MAM made 2 different conical mounts. One puts the engine 1 1/2 inches higher than the other, which is what you need for the speed cowl. Also, the speed cowl has a different bottom half for this mount, and you need to be sure MAM sends you the right one or it won't fit properly.
I think the cost and ease of installation is the same for either, but as you say the rubbers for the conical mount are a lot cheaper than the dynafocal ones. I have about 100 hours on my first set, and they don't show any signs of wear yet. Usually the conical engines can be had for a lot less, too, as a lot of people don't like them.
Also, I read a few months ago on this list that a conical engine can be converted to dynafocal if you want.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com [mailto:
murphy-rebel@dcsol.com]
On Behalf Of Murray & Carol
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:22 PM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: dynafocal vs. conical
Hi Gang:
The dynafocal allows quite a bit of movement which may be easier on the firewall attach points. One needs more allowance in the cowling for this movement, maybe it shakes so much parts fall off. The lord mounts are very $$$$.
The conical has less engine movement. Maybe more stress on the engine mount. I've heard that the rubbers need replacing more often, but the price is right.
Is one easier to install than the other? Does one cost less to instsall? Is one faster or easier to install?
All suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Plugging along,
REBEL 505
dynafocal vs. conical
Posted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:17 pm
by Wayne G. O'Shea
Yes the Conical Engine can be converted to a Dynafocal by filling the existing mounting holes and then facing the new angle mounts and drilling new holes. Leavens is offering this at no extra charge for anyone wanting the O-320-A2B that they have in the shop ready for overhaul (and if you are dead set on having a dynafocal mount).
FWIW, I have flown both styles (dynafocal and conical) numerous time and in the Rebel "environment" there is no distinguishable difference between them to me!
Cheers,
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Klatt (
walter.klatt@shaw.ca)
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com (
murphy-rebel@dcsol.com)
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 11:48 PM
Subject: RE: dynafocal vs. conical
I use the conical mount on my 0320 Rebel. Supposedly it vibrates the airframe more than a dynafocal type, but have not found that a problem at all with mine. MAM made 2 different conical mounts. One puts the engine 1 1/2 inches higher than the other, which is what you need for the speed cowl. Also, the speed cowl has a different bottom half for this mount, and you need to be sure MAM sends you the right one or it won't fit properly.
I think the cost and ease of installation is the same for either, but as you say the rubbers for the conical mount are a lot cheaper than the dynafocal ones. I have about 100 hours on my first set, and they don't show any signs of wear yet. Usually the conical engines can be had for a lot less, too, as a lot of people don't like them.
Also, I read a few months ago on this list that a conical engine can be converted to dynafocal if you want.
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com [mailto:
murphy-rebel@dcsol.com]
On Behalf Of Murray & Carol
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:22 PM
To: murphy-rebel@dcsol.com
Subject: dynafocal vs. conical
Hi Gang:
The dynafocal allows quite a bit of movement which may be easier on the firewall attach points. One needs more allowance in the cowling for this movement, maybe it shakes so much parts fall off. The lord mounts are very $$$$.
The conical has less engine movement. Maybe more stress on the engine mount. I've heard that the rubbers need replacing more often, but the price is right.
Is one easier to install than the other? Does one cost less to instsall? Is one faster or easier to install?
All suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Plugging along,
REBEL 505