Engine Mount Rubbers

[Nathan K. Hammond]

Wow....a bit more involved than what I thought, but I bet we could still do it. We've got a composite shop at the Griffin airport, I'll talk with them and see what I can learn. I still think we could make these the way we want, and legally install them.

Good job Mike. Would it help if we gave them a call ?

nkh

[MikeB]

Regarding contacting Wag Aero. Let's see what happens. The email sounded like they were going to try to solve the problem (obviously, it is a problem). I'll stay on top of it for now and if I don't get some sort of response back in a week or so, I'll let the group know and maybe we can flood them with enough messages to get some sort of action. I haven't used the mounts from Aircraft Spruce, but I understand this is a problem with them and UNIVAR also. They probably all get their mounts from the same supplier (Superior????).

[Nathan K. Hammond]

Correct Mike, Spruce gets most of thier Engine stuff from Superior.

nkh

[MikeB]

UPDATE ON ENGINE MOUNT RUBBERS: as I mentioned before, I would keep the group informed on any communication or progress from Wag Aero regarding our complaint on the short service life (cracking) of the presently available engine mount rubbers that we have been getting from various suppliers. I recieved another email today from Roger Basterash at Wag Aero. As it's fairly long I'll paraphrase it. "I recieved the bushings from Teledyne Continental and also heard from Superior who took my complaint very serious. We read and noted the various posts on the Aeronca website regarding problems with the mount bushings and they (Superior) would forward the information to quality control and engineering. Secondly, the TCM bushings are very similiar to Superior, although the Teledynes are slightly smaller. I will be taking the bushings to rubber suppliers for testing. Would you or any of your group be interested in seeing the bushings for comparison? At any rate, I will be pressing this subject until we reach some type of favorable conclusion.
By the way, the cost of the TCM and Superior are virtually the same".
(Roger Basterash/Wag Aero)

So anyway, it looks like someone is working on the problem and, hopefully will solve the short service life of these engine mount bushings.
If I hear anything further, I'll let the group know. If you have any suggestions, you might send them to Roger at rbasterash@wagaero.com
Be nice, though........he's at least working on the problem for us .

Mike Berg

[Ron Babos]

Mike: Good work on finding someone willing to listen. You mentioned cracking as your main bitch. Mine is, they cannot be torqured close to manual specs. They sqwish out and that makes the head bigger and stresses the outside to the point it ruptures or cracks form in about a week. The fact they cannot be torqued means the cannot be compressed into the cone area of the engine. With out this compression in play, they cannot keep the engine centered with the cones. Both problems are caused from the same source. Too soft.
The old stock that I put on, easily went to 80 inch lbs, but if I tried that with the Superiors it would almost bottom the case to the engine mount, plus the head dia grew to biblical proportions.
Should be an easy fix for the companies, and the fact they will listen , is a good sign.
Ron

[Nathan K. Hammond]

I'd be more than happy to be a guinea pig! Tell'm to send me a couple different sets and I'll give them a full report. Seriously.

nkh

[Tim Juhl]

I've been following this thread with great interest. I put new rubber mounts on last year and had the same problems with cracking and not being able to torque to spec.

If improved rubber mounts become available I'll be near the head of the line to try them.

Tim Juhl

[Ron Babos]

You guys have to get in line after me. Me first.
Ron

[Nathan K. Hammond]

I asked first! of corse Mike will probably trump us all!

nkh

[MikeB]

First of all, Ron: that is my complaint. When you try to torque them, they just squish out and the end result is cracking in a few weeks/hours/days/minutes/milliseconds. The other problem I had was (and you have to realize my plane was a 'basket case' when I started on it) the prop tended to run too close to the nose bowl. Someone solved this before I got the plane by putting 1/4 inch thick washers between the mount and the engine. I kind of wondered if that wasn't caused by poor engine mount rubbers. Anyway, that problem is solved, the rubber cracking isn't.

Secondly, if one of you wants to contact Roger at the above (Wag Aero) email address.....be my guest. I'm not going to pull the engine on either of the Champs until I'm sure the rubber cracking is solved (been there/done that). It probably doesn't hurt a ---- of a lot at this point, but it sure looks unprofessional and, of course, the end result will probably be that the rubbers will get completely 'beat out' eventually.

[MikeB]

I haven't heard back from Wag Aero regarding the A65 motor mount rubbers, but I have a question for some of you that may have more experience than I do on various aircraft.

How much difference is there between the A65 rubber mounts and the 0200 rubber mounts?

Has there been a problem with cracking on the 0200 rubbers?

Is it possible to use 0200 rubber mounts in the Aeronca/A65, etc. mount set up?

Just wondering as I know it's not uncommon to install a 0200 in a Aeronca with a STC.

Thanks......Mike Berg

I'll keep on top of my contact at Wag Aero regarding the cracking problem, though.

[Ron Babos]

Mike: I believe the 0-200 uses something called a Lord mount, and not the conical things we have. http://www.airworlduk.com/ffwd5.html The text does not seem to belong to the picture, but they look like this.
Ron[/img]

[Paul Agaliotis]

Mike,
There is a great deal of difference in the mount isolators. The A series and most C series use a tapered area for the rubber to conform to, front and back. The O200 and some C series use a thru hole appx. 1" in diameter. The LORD mount fits this hole and conforms to it.
I am not aware of any cracking problems with this unit, but they will sag after some useage.
The early case might be adapted for the LORD mount but I have not seen this done. When the LORD mount is used it tends to move the engine forward about 1/2". This might require the cowling to be modified if the engine interferes with the nose bowl.
Paul

[MikeB]

Thanks Ron and Paul.....that answers my question. I owned a C150 with a 0200 years ago; but don't remember how the engine was mounted. I know Buzz Wagner owns a STC for installing the 0200 in a Champ (in fact, my AI has one for the 7AC I've been covering for him) but didn't know the details which must be a different mount completely. It was just a thought that's been bouncing through my empty mind.........so back to the old cracked Superior rubbers again. I've got a email in to my contact at WAG.......let you know when I hear something.

Mike

[MikeB]

OK Aeronca friends; here's my answer from Roger at Wag Aero. As you'll recall I sent him a email regarding the short life and cracking on the Continental (which are apparently made by Superior) engine mount bushings.

"Mike; I have sent a sample of the Superior Air bushings to a local rubber parts manufactuer and asked them for some help. They said it would cost approximately $1500 to do a complete analysis for the rubber; but that their educated guess is that they are made from 60 durometer rubber, the same as the Continental bushing material. As I said in an earlier email I could not tell any difference between the two. I also asked the rubber manufacturer about the cost of producing this part. They quoted me a price that was not much difference than what I am paying for the Superior or Continental part. However, the cost of having a mold made and the cost of getting it approved by the FAA would make my payback somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 years, making this not an option I could expand upon. We, at Wag Aero are considering carrying both Superior parts and Continental parts, so it will be a customer's choice. I have not heard any more from Superior since my initial contact with them but I am planning to followup with them to see if they have come to any conclusions about their product not holding up to the demands of you, our customers. I have 8 Continental bushings if someone is interesting in purchasing and testing them against the Superior bushings. And again, I can get the Continental bushings for our customers and we are considering stocking both brands."

(Mike says) So there is where Wag Aero is at this point. In my humble opinion, it seems that if the bushing are made from the same material, the problem will still exist, although it also seems that he (Roger) mentioned that there was a slight difference in shape (?) between the Superior and Continental bushing (not sure about that). Maybe it's worth it to try the Continental bushings, although it's not all that much fun to change mount bushings now when the hanger temperature is 20 degrees in Wisconsin. On the other hand, my AI has a heated hanger I might be able to get into....what do you all think?

It also seems that if Superior is making a defective product, it shouldn't be on the market.

Looking for input!! (my wife thinks I'm a stubborn Norwegien....also a walking encylopedia of 'useless information' ).

Thanks,
Mike Berg