Easiest way to change engine mounts

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by daletournier

Some mention supporting engine under oil pan....isn't there a concern of bending the pan? I'm doing my 3gm30f sometime this year , so I'm interested.

Sent from my GT-N7105T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

The oil pan isn't stamped steel. But a casting. When I did an engine swap to. 3gm30f the engine came on the pallet resting on the oil pan. It's plenty strong.

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by pcmm

The oil pan isn't stamped steel. But a casting. When I did an engine swap to. 3gm30f the engine came on the pallet resting on the oil pan. It's plenty strong.

I noticed that when I changed them, cast aluminum oil pans tend to dampen noise to, whereas stamped steel ones can resonate, but stamped bends, and cast cracks so, but I do believe it will support the weight of an engine.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by HappyMdRSailor

Awesome! !!!

It was just crap mounts then with the vibe. ... you know. ... like a broken one in a car, but these weren't. ...

Soft or worn-out so they let the engine move out of alignment at your wiggly speeds. ....

Multiple crossed fingers to be completely resolved!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Vibe is still there, just not nearly as bad and occurs higher in the RPM band now, just didn't happen at the dock.
I believe mostly it was sagged out mounts allowing engine alignment to be out as it occurred also with a three blade fixed prop too.


Sent from my iPad Pro using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by EWOL Props

It is of fundamental importance to have blades taking the same pitch, so you need a central gear to sync them.

Having tracked and balanced a many a helicopter rotor system, I can tell you it's not pitch that you are trying to ensure is the same, but lift, or thrust in the case of a prop to reduce vibration. Yes mechanically linking the blades together will result in pitch being very close to the same, it may not result in identical thrust.
Balancing the thrust output of each blade with them not being mechanically linked is a technically difficult proposition I assume, but as the Autoprop has been in manufacture for quite awhile, I assume it a problem that they licked.

All feathering props I have seen except for the Autoprop have essentially no blade shape, no airfoil, and no blade twist, and therefore must be inefficient.
Nothing's perfect


Sent from my iPad Pro using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[Yoya]

Hello. I've got a Mercedes OM636 engine on a Westerly Conway and it needs new mounts. The current mounts are 100mm center holes, the new ones are 110mm center holes. I'm thinking of using one existing holes on the brackets and drilling only a single new hole for each new mount. That way I need to drill only 4 new holes instead of 8 new ones and the new holes will not have a figure 8 shape (if i drill new holes for each, since the holes are 10mm wide, adding 5 mm to each in order to accommodate the longer mounts will create a figure 8). This will require to mount the engine 10 mm back (aft) on the brackets than it is currently mounted. There is extra 26mm length on the rear end of the brackets aft of the existing holes so this can be done, and there's enough space for the propeller to move back with the shaft 10 mm so it does not hit the hull/rudder. Im wondering if this is a feasible thing to do or am I better off keeping the existing engine placement on the brackets. Would it also change the angle of the engine and make it impossible to align the shaft again? what other issues this may create?
The coupling on the shaft are simple to adjust as they have I believe no place for a feeler gauge. Thanks in advance for your opinion!
starboard aft:

port aft:

port fwd:

starboard fwd: