![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message ... In a previous article, said: A quick Google search yielded this info on the engine used in the Remos: http://www.rotaxservice.com/rotax_en...ax_912ULSs.htm Ok, I'm a little embarassed that I couldn't find that info myself. Is a reduction gearbox seen as a reliability problem, or isn't that such a big deal any more? -- I haven't flown one, so I can't be certain, but I'm guessing it would at least seriously hamper the engines ability to windmill during a temporary fuel starvation, or carb ice situation. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I haven't flown one, so I can't be certain, but I'm guessing it would at
least seriously hamper the engines ability to windmill during a temporary fuel starvation, or carb ice situation. I've never thought of that. Does anyone with Rotax flight experience know the answer to that? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Why do you want it to windmill? there is no vacuum system.
wrote in message ... I haven't flown one, so I can't be certain, but I'm guessing it would at least seriously hamper the engines ability to windmill during a temporary fuel starvation, or carb ice situation. I've never thought of that. Does anyone with Rotax flight experience know the answer to that? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
news.verizon.net wrote:
Why do you want it to windmill? there is no vacuum system. Quicker restart. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Matt Whiting schrieb:
Why do you want it to windmill? there is no vacuum system. Quicker restart. In the only situation that I can think of in which a quick engine restart may matter, you really wouldn't want to dive for windmill. Besides, using the starter yields the desired result at least as quickly. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Stefan" wrote in message ... Matt Whiting schrieb: Why do you want it to windmill? there is no vacuum system. Quicker restart. In the only situation that I can think of in which a quick engine restart may matter, you really wouldn't want to dive for windmill. Besides, using the starter yields the desired result at least as quickly. You don't need to dive on a direct drive, the engine continues to windmill from the time it stalls. In Cessna's you have to slow to very near stall speed to actually stop the prop. I would suspect the same for all the Lycoming and Continental powered aircraft. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Nov 29, 3:31 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
I haven't flown one, so I can't be certain, but I'm guessing it would at least seriously hamper the engines ability to windmill during a temporary fuel starvation, or carb ice situation. If a Lyc or Continental dies due to carb ice, it isn't going to restart either. It needs air and fuel to generate heat to get the ice out, and a pilot who lets things deteriorate until the thing is dead is faced with a forced landing whether it's a direct-drive engine or a geared engine. Continental has built geared engines: The GO-300, GO-480, the Tiara (not too successful), and there are many geared radials. Most have some RPM range where they're not comfortable, and some direct- drive setups have the same due to prop resonance. The Cherokee 180 was one of them. There's a yellow arc on the tach: pass through it, don't linger there. All will be well. Geared engines are more efficient in terms of weight/HP ratio. HP is a function of torque times RPM, so raising RPM gets more jam for a small weight increase in the form of a reduction of some sort. Gears, V-belts, timing belts, chains; they've all been employed. In some engines it improves safety by taking the thrust and gyroscopic forces off the crankshaft and putting them onto something more suitable. If it hadn't been for geared engines we wouldn't have had the P-51, P-40, Spitfire, P-38, Lancaster, and many more. On the other hand, the other side wouldn't have been such a threat. Dan |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Morgans ...Rotax (x 2) | Montblack | Home Built | 12 | April 28th 06 07:19 AM |
Rotax vs. Jabiru | Cal Vanize | Home Built | 30 | January 23rd 06 08:15 PM |
80 hp Rotax Falke as Tug | [email protected] | Soaring | 4 | December 28th 05 10:08 AM |
Rotax 912 Preheaters | Willard | Home Built | 2 | November 13th 05 12:02 AM |
Ellison TBI and ROTAX 582 | Bill Elliott | Aerobatics | 0 | December 22nd 03 05:58 PM |