an8pilot
Mike
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2012
- Messages
- 419
- Reaction score
- 58
I see on the Steen website the 540 mount with conical mounts.
I also see the 360 Lyc mount with dynafocal mounts.
What's the reason for not having the dynafocal option for the 540 being that the 540 is on many certificated airplane tight cowling installations with the dynafocal arrangements?
Is it that there's too much weight to handle with aerobatics with two extra cylinders out there?
It seems like the airplane would like much less vibration theoretically.
I know on the Aztec after a loooong time the dynafocal will start to sag the nose a little, but not a whole lot. Just means new rubbers needed.
In Steen the dynafocal 360 mount is a 100 more than the 540 conical rubber bushing type mount.
Are the bolt holes attaching it to the fuselage any bigger.
I am having to possibly order this with friends relaying me the dimensions of the bolt holes center to center and bolt hole width with me not seeing it directly in order to get it started as I am away from home for another 3 1/2 months.
I also see the 360 Lyc mount with dynafocal mounts.
What's the reason for not having the dynafocal option for the 540 being that the 540 is on many certificated airplane tight cowling installations with the dynafocal arrangements?
Is it that there's too much weight to handle with aerobatics with two extra cylinders out there?
It seems like the airplane would like much less vibration theoretically.
I know on the Aztec after a loooong time the dynafocal will start to sag the nose a little, but not a whole lot. Just means new rubbers needed.
In Steen the dynafocal 360 mount is a 100 more than the 540 conical rubber bushing type mount.
Are the bolt holes attaching it to the fuselage any bigger.
I am having to possibly order this with friends relaying me the dimensions of the bolt holes center to center and bolt hole width with me not seeing it directly in order to get it started as I am away from home for another 3 1/2 months.
