![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan Interesting post, Dan. I've seen cylindrical "barrel" type heat exchangers intended for installation in a round duct. I wonder if these might be an alternative choice to the flat automotive-type radiators. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote I've seen cylindrical "barrel" type heat exchangers intended for installation in a round duct. I wonder if these might be an alternative choice to the flat automotive-type radiators. Doubtful that you could get enough surface area in a round radiator. If you just made it longer, efficiency would suffer, since the half that is downstream would only be getting hot air. Dan is absolutely correct, about the ducting and baffles being important. In the P-51 (probably the best cooling design ever) the duct intake was small, then the important part was the shape as the duct got bigger, to slow the speed the air went through the radiator, and also like he said, gain a little pressure. -- Jim in NC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() wrote in message ... On Aug 27, 3:32 pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote: "Jim Logajan" wrote in message .. . Ron Wanttaja wrote: On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:07:46 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: everyone says "ooh -- auto...dangerous" but no one can explain exactly why. 1. Ignition systems with insufficient redundancy. 2. PSRU failures. 3. Difficulty in implementing efficient liquid cooling systems. But doesn't the Rotax 912 have reduction gearing and liquid cooling? It is getting put into an awful lot of aircraft models - particularly LSAs. That's true, and the biggest annoyance (of which I am aware) is that they have increased the recommended "idle" speed to increase the service life of the PSRU--which is of the spur gear type. I don't know whether any of the belt or chain type PSRU installations have a similar requirement. As to cooling: there were a lot of liquid cooled aircraft engines in WWII, but the the aircraft they in which they were installed looked a lot different from their air cooled counterparts. Peter Even belted PSRUs have vibration nodes. The Glastar in which we put a PSRU'd Soob didn't like 1400 engine RPM; it semed to be an argument between the flywheel's inertia and the prop's. Running it at that RPM for long would have torn the teeth off the belt. I didn't notice if there were further nodes at 2800 and 5600. Adjusting belt tension didn't change anything. I've read about (and encountered) cases of cooling problems in auto conversions. Many builders underestimate the amount of heat that needs discarding, and also make mistakes in radiator installation and baffling. I've seen rads mounted out in the breeze where they not only slow the airplane but suffer from airflow problems created by the vortices generated around the rad. I've seen a couple of small rads mounted behine the front cowl openings, where they're supposed to get ram air, but without proper baffling to separate the incoming air from the air behind the rads the pressure differential is minimal, causing low flow, and air eddying around the rad further interferes with flow. In the Glastar I mounted the big, full-size rad (from the same car as the engine) behind the engine, at an angle so that the top edge was at the firewall and the bottom was forward about 8". Baffling around the rad made sure that ALL air leaving the cowl (except for a bit leaving around the hot exhaust pipes) had to go through the rad, so I had maximum flow. A lip on the cowl outlet to accelerate air away from the opening lowered the pressure further so that max differential was maintained between the front and rear of the rad. And even with all this the engine's coolant temp reached max in an extended full- power climb on a summer day. The P-51 had an underbelly scoop and a variable-geometry outlet behind it. The rad was in this housing. Inlet and outlet shape and size were critical, and I've heard that the designers were so clever that they even got a little thrust as the cooling air expanded and was accelerated a little when it left the outlet. OWT, maybe, but there's lots to learn from their design anyway. It's worth noting that the inlet was much smaller than the rad's area; Mr. Bernoulli tells us that pressure increases as airflow slows and decreases as it accelerates, so the divergent duct between the inlet and rad face slowed the air and increased its pressure. Same principle used in numerous places in a jet engine. Dan I was only thinking of the exact ratios that place the same teeth in use on each successive rotation of the belt. Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Dohm" wrote Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. I have read about the issue of whether to have ratios to get a constantly different belt to tooth interface, and I wish I could remember more of what it said. I recall that while it is important to vary ratios in a toothed gear redrive away from exact ratios like 2:1, so different teeth mate with both gears (prevents wearing a certain pattern in each other) that is not a necessary condition for toothed belt redrives. I recall that in fact, it is not desirable to do that, but again, my recall is incomplete. The information is out there, though. I would love to design my own belt redrive, but when the time comes, I know I would be more comfortable going with a company that has a well proven track record with many of their drives in active, high time service. -- Jim in NC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 28, 4:05 pm, "Morgans" wrote:
I recall that while it is important to vary ratios in a toothed gear redrive away from exact ratios like 2:1, so different teeth mate with both gears (prevents wearing a certain pattern in each other) that is not a necessary condition for toothed belt redrives. I recall that in fact, it is not desirable to do that, but again, my recall is incomplete. Rotax two-strokes are available with a variety of gearbox ratios, among them 2.0:1, 3.0:1 and 4.0:1. The others are odd, like 2.24:1 and 3.47:1. They've been building these things for a long time and I expect they've figured out what the problems with even ratios are and how to fix them. http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.co...n.Data_503.pdf I have a Hummelbird that I want to get finished someday, and I've considered the Rotax 503 for it. I don't like the rum-rum-rum sound made by the odd ratios, and would choose an even number, probably 3:1 or 4:1 so I could swing the largest prop possible for better takeoff and climb performance. The Hummelbird is supposed to use the half-VW, but after Veeduber's advice about the VW's inadequate cylinder head finning and its resulting propensity to burn its valves regularly, I think maybe I'll stay away from it, even though I prefer the sound of a four- stroke over the whine of a two-stroke. My first car was a VW Bug and it burned its valves on a long uphill pull. It just wasn't made to put out 100% power for any length of time. Dan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Dohm" wrote in message . .. I was only thinking of the exact ratios that place the same teeth in use on each successive rotation of the belt. Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. I think their primary purpose it simply to reduce or eliminate chatter when engaging the clutch. Most high performance clutches don't even use them. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Ramsey wrote:
"Peter Dohm" wrote in message . .. I was only thinking of the exact ratios that place the same teeth in use on each successive rotation of the belt. Torsional resonance can be extremely difficult to monitor andI am glad that you were able to identify it before it became a dissaster. For the moment, my own project and the decision to build around a PSRU or use a direct drive aircraft engine has been pushed further into the future. But I have wondered whether the elimination of critical speeds might be the true purpose of those little springs in the driven plate of a manual clutch. I think their primary purpose it simply to reduce or eliminate chatter when engaging the clutch. Most high performance clutches don't even use them. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/PSRU Zen Part 2.html |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Ernest Christley" wrote in message ... http://www.rotaryaviation.com/PSRU Zen Part 2.html Bad link. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Zebulon wrote:
"Ernest Christley" wrote in message ... http://www.rotaryaviation.com/PSRU Zen Part 2.html Bad link. The link is correct, you just have to use the whole thing. http://www.rotaryaviation.com/PSRU Zen Part 2.html Charles |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Auto Engine Conversion Video | stol | Home Built | 24 | May 4th 08 05:13 AM |
Auto-conversion adapter plate | Ernest Christley | Home Built | 3 | June 29th 05 06:19 AM |
Auto-Engine Conversion Oil Cooler | D.W. Taylor | Home Built | 0 | April 29th 05 05:30 AM |
Auto conversion cost post | Richard Riley | Home Built | 13 | December 28th 03 12:52 PM |
C172 Penn Yan 180 HP Engine Conversion | John Roncallo | Owning | 4 | October 20th 03 06:42 PM |