Wow! Ooops, take #3

It will only be a matter of time before the U.S. FAA issues an AD based on the AESA AD that will impact gliders in the US.
US owners should heed the cautions and not operate the SOLO engine.
Interesting that the AD specifically identified the previous SOLO service bulletin as not acceptable.

BillT

Looking at the Solo website http://aircraft.solo-online.com/index.php it looks like the c model is very different in that it shows a belt drive while the straight 2350 shows a direct drive. It appears that the AD is only for the C model.

DVM

God doesn't like motors on sailplanes.......

It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's DG1000T in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

At 07:46 03 April 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's
DG1000T
in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not
concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

Also the turbo Antares - or at least the prototype according to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxwvd-ps2A

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 6:02:44 AM UTC-7, John Galloway wrote:
At 07:46 03 April 2015, Tango Whisky wrote:
It affects ONLY 2350C engines with non-foldable propellor. That's
DG1000T
in the first place (which caused the AD) and probably J'S. S-H is not
concerned (and I'll use it on my Ventus cM).

Also the turbo Antares - or at least the prototype according to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mxwvd-ps2A

Try buying an Antares 23, they are not even being made.

I think it says more about the technical competence of the
engine designers; maybe God doesn't like them either?

At 02:42 03 April 2015, wrote:
God doesn't like motors on sailplanes.......

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:02:11 AM UTC-5, Dave Walsh wrote:
I think it says more about the technical competence of the
engine designers; maybe God doesn't like them either?


Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that. Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard

The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:48:59 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:42:40 AM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
Well, crankshafts don't like to be loaded at their output location
other than along the axis of rotation. Put a belt reduction drive
on there, and you are applying load perpendicular to that.
Interesting dynamics happen with a two cylinder in-line engine
with this setup. It is not an easy system to design.

Steve Leonard

The failure is the prop hub (receiving end of belt reduction),
not at the crankshaft. Last round was classic fatigue - nice
crystalline structure on broken part.

Same sort of issue. Up and down loading on that shaft due to increasing and decreasing tension because of engine dynamics and the loading going in and out of phase with the prop being in low or high moment of inertia relative to the motion (prop horizontal, low moment of inertia relative to motion created by pushing up and down by the drive belt). Likely source of the fatigue failure. But, as stated before, these are complex systems with lots of interactions. Be interesting to know the crack propagation direction relative to the blades on the prop.