another eng mount question

Ask Questions and Offer Advice Related to the Cessna 120 & 140 Type
Forum rules
You must be a member of the Cessna 120-140 Association in order to post new topics, reply to existing topics, or search for information on this forum. Use the "Join" link in the red menu bar.
Post Reply
carll
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2026 12:05 pm
Name:
Aircraft Type:
Occupation-Interests:
Contact:

another eng mount question

Post by carll »

I have a C-90-14F engine to install on a 140 plane that previously had a -12F engine. The current installed engine mount is the 0451000. I see per the A-768 TCDS, note 5 that I need a (0451111) different engine mount. The note 5 mount has an addition diagonal brace presumably for a higher horse powered engine?? The -12F and -14F have the same horse power but I think the -14F weighs 4 more pounds. I also see the -14F uses different mounting hardware, than the -12F hardware.

Is there a conversion/adapter STC (or 337) out there that would substantiate putting the -14F engine on the 0451000 engine mount? If so can someone steer me to it??

Thanks
User avatar
6643
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 7:00 am
Name: John C
Location: KLCI, NH
Aircraft Type: 1946 C140/C90
Occupation-Interests: A&P, semi-retired
Contact:

Re: another eng mount question

Post by 6643 »

The -14 engine uses the same engine mounts as the O200, called "Lord Mounts". The -8 and -12 use the "conical" mounts. The Lord mounts extend back about 1/2 inch farther from the engine case than the conical mounts, so, unless you change the mount your engine will be about 1/2 inch further forward and interfere with the cowl. I'd be interested to see how your installation accommodates the difference.

The additional tube in the 0451111 is to accommodate the additional power of the O200.

Lord mount is on the left.
lords_on_the_left_208.jpg
lords_on_the_left_208.jpg (92.8 KiB) Viewed 767 times
There are adapters you can get to allow the -14 case to use the -12 conical mounts. Their airworthiness is questionable... I would say a field approval would be required.
V529
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 7:00 am
Name: Victor G
Location: Michigan
Aircraft Type: C-120
Occupation-Interests: Work on airplanes till the cows come home..........they're still out.
Contact:

Re: another eng mount question

Post by V529 »

I suspect you may do more damage than good by trying to find a "conversion" isolator. I realize the cost of the new mount and the Lord isolators are substantial, but not having good isolators, that properly fit and support your engine could cost the price of an engine case (and complete tear down) sometime in the future. Personally, I wouldn't even consider it.
carll
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2026 12:05 pm
Name:
Aircraft Type:
Occupation-Interests:
Contact:

Re: another eng mount question

Post by carll »

Thanks for all the words of wisdom.

I went forward in getting the 0451111 "proper" mount ( for the C90-14F engine I have). There is indeed a 1/2 inch difference in station value. See attached photos 0451000 mount next to the 0451111. I placed a level on two of the mount pads common to the "taller" 0451000. I extended the level over one of the same pads on the "shorter" and used a scale to show the difference.

I came across a used a set of a " conversion isolators " to install the -14F engine I have on the 0451000 mount. I could not find any substantiation data to present on a 337 and was not confident in the vibrations I might encounter. So I gave up on the idea.
Attachments
0451111 left of 0451000.jpg
0451111 left of 0451000.jpg (4.48 MiB) Viewed 108 times
station value difference.jpg
station value difference.jpg (3.13 MiB) Viewed 108 times
conversion isolators.jpg
conversion isolators.jpg (3.75 MiB) Viewed 108 times
User avatar
6643
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 7:00 am
Name: John C
Location: KLCI, NH
Aircraft Type: 1946 C140/C90
Occupation-Interests: A&P, semi-retired
Contact:

Re: another eng mount question

Post by 6643 »

Photo two shows the adapters I was referring to. I recall that Don Swords had some sort of approval for them, but I could be wrong.
Post Reply