Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #66183
From: Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Kelly's 20B/Lyc 540 mount pics4
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2020 14:39:35 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>


On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:05 PM William Jepson wrjjrs@gmail.com <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
Charlie,
My friend, an original PowerSport partner, built several all aluminum engines. They always used multiple mounts. The problem was always the studs, and the fact that the rotary has the problem of uneven heating. Powersport attacked that problem by changing the cooling system on their Superlite engine with the water input in the center of the combustion area. The flow was outward to both ends and out. The standard engine uses a series flow which is okay for automotive levels. If you have ever seen the internals of the sideplates you will see how much baffling Mazda did internally to get a fairly uniform heating across the housings. Studs still need to be improved for continuous high power use.
 The conical mount for the Lyc is supposed to be focused at or near the center of mass, engine and prop, for smoother running. The mount added to the Mazda will need to be laid out differently depending on which PSRU, and prop combination. The center of mass can vary a lot depending on the prop selected and the mass of the PSRU. The difference of mass of the rotary itself can change radically if aluminum side plates are used. (about 1/3 less) There are a lot of variables to consider just to use a standard aircraft engine mount. I believe it's much easier to use a bed mount and save the engineering for a better PSRU and perhaps a drive for a variable speed prop. (I've attached a page of an original PowerSport article showing the sideplates and assembled engine.)
Bill


No disagreement about any of the above, in relation to the dyna style mounts, except the terms. 'Conical', when talking about Lycs, refers to what's otherwise known as a 'straight' mount, with all 4 mount faces in the same plane and all 4 bolts parallel to each other. 'Conical' apparently comes from the shape of the cushions themselves; not the angles of the mount bolts. 'Dynafocal' refers to the type 1 & type 2 mounts that try to converge the extended bolt paths at the CG of the engine/prop assy ('focal', as in -'point'). I'm pretty sure I hinted at that in an earlier email. 

It's also true that Dyna mounts have limited utility for their designed-purpose even with many (most?) Lyc installations, because the same mount angle is used with everything from parallel valve O320s to angle valve IO360s, with/without prop extensions (of varying lengths), and everything from 12 lb wood or composite props to 60 lb+ C/S props. Easily a 100 lb spread, and likely a 4 or 5" CG movement. The type 2 angle was to compensate for a prop that had a hub only a couple of inches longer than standard.

Charlie

Charlie
Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster