Lord Mounts J9613-40 versus J9613-49

rvator51 · #1 11-27-2011, 07:07 AM

Does anyone know if the -40 lord mounts are the same thickness as the -49. I need to replace mine and there are some good deals on ebay for new -49 lord mounts. Seems most people use the -40 but some are using the -49. I want to make sure they are the same thickness or I will have problems with gap at front of cowling.

mahlon_r · #2 11-29-2011, 06:36 AM

The rubber biscuits are the same size and I believe the center spacer is the same length. But they are of different resiliency. As I recall, the -49?s were typically used on 320/360 engines in Cessna installations and the -40's were used on Piper aircraft with the same engine models.
Good Luck,
Mahlon
"The opinions and information provided in this and all of my posts are hopefully helpful to you. Please use the information provided responsibly and at your own risk."

az_gila · #3 11-29-2011, 08:40 AM

The Lord 9613-40 and -49 only differ by one of the sandwich elements. The spacer has an identical part number so the mounting dimension will be identical.

It seems the old Lord corp. documents were much more informative -

http://www.n2999c.com/N2999C-info/ai...mount_lord.pdf

The part number data is on page 34 for the three parts that make up the assembly.

It's a pity that this on-line copy does not clearly reproduce all of the Lord installation drawings...

chaskuss · #4 11-29-2011, 09:13 AM

Gil,
Great document. Thanks! Here is a link for inspection and care of the engine mounts on your RV. See

http://www.lord.com/products-and-sol...ord-mounts.xml

Charlie

az_gila · #5 11-29-2011, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaskuss

Gil,
Great document. Thanks! Here is a link for inspection and care of the engine mounts on your RV. See

http://www.lord.com/products-and-sol...ord-mounts.xml

Charlie

Yep... I found that, and also noticed it does not cover the 9613 parts...

Some interesting factoids in the old scanned document - the IO-320 and IO-360 (page 78) moves forward 0.036 inch under take-off thrust...

chaskuss · #6 11-29-2011, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by az_gila

Yep... I found that, and also noticed it does not cover the 9613 parts...

snipped

Gil,
I noticed that too. The closest listing is for 9612. The document's first sentence warns:

Where a component maintenance manual is available for a system, its requirements take precedence.

It does outline how these mounts tend to distend over time.

Charlie

rvator51 · #7 11-29-2011, 10:18 AM

Thanks everyone for their help! Looks like the -49 will work ok then for the RV as a replacement for the -40 at a lot cheaper cost.

rhill · #8 11-29-2011, 10:54 AM

Which is best for vibration? has the least deflection under load? I see one has a steel spacer the other has a rubber football ...... Did I just answer my own question!

az_gila · #9 11-29-2011, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhill

Which is best for vibration? has the least deflection under load? I see one has a steel spacer the other has a rubber football ...... Did I just answer my own question!

NO, both of the parts use the same spacer part number J-12334-1

See page 34 of the above link.

The only difference is one of the rubber blocks.

Reading the hard-to-read installation drawings at the link, it seems like the 9613-40 mount is softer than the 9613-49 since it has more downward deflection at 1 g with take-off torque.

rhill · #10 11-29-2011, 06:27 PM

Gill, OK thank you,If I may ask which one will you use in your 6 project?