What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV Conical mounts?

R

redbowen

Member
I need to replace the engine mounts on my O360-C1F and want to know if the Vans Conical mounts listed below are worth the much higher price than standard new bushings? Does anyone have experience with these?

The"EA CON VIBRATION ISO" is the Conical engine vibration mount. Adapts Van's CONICAL engine mounts to the older conical Lycoming engines. These are a very high quaility model that transmits the least possible vibration to the airframe.
 
Have not used Vans conical vibration mounts, but did use aircraft spruce conical mounts ($42) on my first rv6 and using them again on my current rv3 project. Rv6 was quite smooth with wood prop. At almost 4x the price I could not justify buying from Vans.
 
Lord Mounts

Replaced mine a couple of months ago. The "EA CON VIBRATION ISO" mounts are Lord mounts and much different than the very simple rubber mounts.
There is a metal spacer in the middle of the lord mounts that helps keep things aligned a working.
Those were completely used up and not doing any good after < 500 hours.
Old Mounts:
AF1QipMdDFkh4fmpYA6kKYAKEZpgc4ujhNscp-3r7J5T


New lord mounts were a pain in the *** to get in, the bolts are longer and we ended up having to put holes in the fire wall and patch it after. Other option is to pull the mount off the firewall. After all was said and done the new mounts were quite a bit smoother.
 
Old, New, Vans, Lord definition ???

I had the mounts from a salvage project I bought and they had the steel sleeves inside. On the recommendation of several folks on the forum, I used Lord 1552 mounts for my new engine install. With a well balanced engine and Catto dynamically balanced prop, it is not perfect but acceptable. I have no before and after reference since its old engine vs new balanced engine, but I don' f feel there is big difference.

So, can somebody assign part numbers to the refernced mounts above regarding Vans vs Lord etc.
 
I use LORD mounts # J-6230-1 for my 0-360-C2E on my RV6A. They have the spacer sleeve and a location pin hole that is to match the mount. I have used this mount since first built but have changed them at 500 hours. Now with almost 300 hours on the second set.
 
So just a follow up, the Vans Con Vibration mounts are actually the Lord J-6230-1 mounts. If any of you are using the Lord mounts and can give feed back positive or negative, it would be appreciated.
Also looking for a confirmation on the correct part number for the cone shaped conical bushings that are currently on the airplane. I believe they are the standard Lyc 71032 engine mount bushings, but spruce only references the O320 with this part # not the O360. Again I have the O-360-C1F.

There is also the Homebuilders conical bushings from Spruce P/N 08-00662
and the Urethane Cone style bushings P/N 08-07392.
So I'm looking for feed back on all these options.

Thanks
 
Lord J-6230-1 mounts not conical

The referenced number J-6230-1 are dynofocal mounts, not conical. Not sure why they are even relevant to this thread.
 
Fact checker - ?

n144sh said:
The referenced number J-6230-1 are dynofocal mounts, not conical. Not sure why they are even relevant to this thread.
Click to expand...

Check this thread - and photos -
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=53007

J-6230-1 is a KIT, a collection of parts;
J-6113-1, Vibration Isolator (the vulcanized cone, kit has 2 for each mount) These have 'orientation holes' which apparently may be useful for turning and knowing the orientation of the eccentric spacer.
Y-8745-S, Spacer (an eccentric cylinder/spacer, kit has 1) Can be used to 'clock' the four corners of the engine mounts.


I tried to buy a J-6113-1 cone separately (to replaced a lost item), but only Lord as a source, and even there couldn't get it.

(for RV-6/7/8/9A) The AN970-8 washer, and the AN8-45 bolt with matching nut AN310-8, can be acquired separately. [Different for RV-3/4].

The Installation sheet for the Conical Vibration Isolator shows a comparison between the two 'styles' - and the OVERALL length of the J-6230-1 kit is (2 5/32") compared to the 'conventional' old rubber cones (1 27/32").

The NEW style is 3x the cost of the ORIGINAL (conventional) but they are significantly different mechanically.

There is a relationship to the A/C that used this KIT ... but don't remember at the moment (Luscombe?). It should be obvious, but whichever is chosen, the four mounts should be the same versions (consistency).

Not yet flying ... soon, but went with the NEW ones.
 
So if I switch to the lord mount is this going to move the engine slightly forward? This could create a cowling issue.
 
The Skygeek picture is not correct, that is not the conical mount, but Van's assured me that the Lord J-6230-1 is the correct part number and the one they sell.
 
I started with the cheap mounts on my O-290 and that engine sagged like nothing I had ever seen before. I was getting ready to buy a set of the Lord mounts when I had my prop strike which forced me to replace the mount and the engine.

I would stay away from those cheap mounts.
 
I have used the Cheap Mounts from Wag-Aero and have great service out of them. Yes I am on my 2nd set but after 19-years and 3,200+ flying hours, I am still getting my money's worth.
 
Also with the wag aero bushing, is there an additional part number for the second half of the mount. They sell the cone (conical) bushing but what about the bushing on the engine side, where could I find the part number on those?
 
For me, YES

redbowen said:
I need to replace the engine mounts on my O360-C1F and want to know if the Vans Conical mounts listed below are worth the much higher price than standard new bushings? Does anyone have experience with these?

The"EA CON VIBRATION ISO" is the Conical engine vibration mount. Adapts Van's CONICAL engine mounts to the older conical Lycoming engines. These are a very high quaility model that transmits the least possible vibration to the airframe.
Click to expand...

With over 2000 hours on a conical mount O-320 (now IO-340), I can say that the more expensive conical mounts were WORTH IT to ME.

Not as smooth as Dynafocal (far less isolation) but worth it.

Your Vibrations May Vary.

James
 
Just wanted to update this post. I went with the Lord mounts and although they were expensive they worked great. Totally smoothed it out. I would recommend these for sure. I purchased them from Vans.
 
I have an older -4 that has the Lycombing conical mounts and they are shot and the engine is sagging ...
I am looking to upgrade to the Lord mounts now that I have the engine out. Does anyone have pros or cons on the J-1552 or the J-6230-1 mounts or using another type mount that is working well for them?
appreciate your inputs. Thanks, George
 
Lord 1552

I replaced J6113 with 1552 ( see prior post). Several VAF members recommended the 1552. They are not as thick so the spinner will move closer. It still doesn't feel like a turbine with precision balanced 0320 engine and prop but I have no reference to say what is the best it could be. The engine dous move move noticeably when pulling positive g cause Lord says the 1552 is softer rubber.

A SIDE NOTE, ABOVE POSTER SAYS DYNAFOCAL IS MUCH SMOOTHER. DAN AT PANTHER llc spa SAYS CONICAL IS JUST AS SMOOTH. Sounds like primer wars !
 
Larry DeCamp said:
A SIDE NOTE, ABOVE POSTER SAYS DYNAFOCAL IS MUCH SMOOTHER. DAN AT PANTHER llc spa SAYS CONICAL IS JUST AS SMOOTH. Sounds like primer wars !
Click to expand...

Like everything with airplanes, the details matter.

It is possible to have something less than optimal (prop balance, etc.) with a dyn engine that would make it not as as smooth as some conical mount engines, but there is a reason that the dynfocal mount engine became the industry standard decades ago.
Is it a huge night and day difference? No. But it is a difference. But not enough that I would pass up a real good deal on an engine or complete airplane purchase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top