what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?

On May 18, 6:44*am, routund wrote:
wrote:
On May 16, 4:13 pm, bildan wrote:
Re. PSRU's

There is a gear reduction unit that handles massive torque and power
the size of a a one-pound coffee can - it's the planetary gearset from
an automatic transmission. *I have two in my Jeep Grand Cherokee
'airport car' transmission that have lasted 300,000 miles - so far.
These things are built to very tight tolerances and are VERY tough.

If you want still tougher, speed shops sell replacement planetaries
that can handle 1500HP or more. *Ask *one to handle only 100HP and
they should last forever. *You can specify just about any reduction
ratio you want.

All you have to do is machine a nose case from billet aluminum to hold
the planetary gearset and the thrust bearing.

* I wish it was so simple. Without a flywheel and/or torque converter
to damp the engine's power pulses, the engine's desire to run in a
vibratory fashion will conflict with the prop's desire to run


Seriously, Tracy Crook and others have done a lot of work on the planetary gear
redrive in conjunction with the Wankel rotary, which BTW is a much better
solution to the overall search for the optimal aircraft engine. *Their
conclusions are similar to the ones you pointed to.

One of Tracy's non-intuitive conclusions was that zero lash was NOT
necessary, and that increasing lash reduced the natural frequency of
the system. Increase the lash enough, and the "rattle" is below idle
speed. Tracy DOES use a rubber damping element on the drive side of
his units.
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/psru_development.htm

================================================== =

Tracy's units are based on the Ford C-6 truck transmission, and are
too heavy for a 40 - 60 HP engine. How about something lighter? I
propose we take a look at the Toyota A131L, which was in production
FOREVER
Applications:
* 1984-2002 Toyota Corolla (1.6L 4A-FE / 3 spd.) (includes FX)
* 1985–1988 Chevrolet Nova
* 1990-1992 geo prizm
Another possible choice would be the A40
Applications:
* Carina 1600 rwd 08/75-04/84
* Carina 1800 rwd 04/81-04/84
* Celica 2000 rwd 01/78-07/82
* Corolla 1300 03/80-09/83
* Corona liftback 04/79-03/81
* Cressida 12/77-06/81
* Cressida 2000 05/81-09/82
* Crown 2600 05/77-03/80
* Starlet 1300 02/82-02/85
or the 245E
Applications:* 1993-2007 Corolla 1.8L 7A-FE

"bildan" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 7:44 am, routund wrote:
wrote:
conclusions are similar to the ones you pointed to.


BTW, I don't think casting has any place in prototyping. Design the
parts with SolidWorks, email the file to a CNC shop who will mill them
from billet and ship the parts in a week. Machined billet parts are
FAR better than castings - and cheaper.

I like your idea. I'm looking at a new transmission, possibly planetary,
for my helicopter. The SolidWorks software is a bit expensive for just
prototyping a single item. Do you have any idea how to get this done
without having to layout a bunch of $ for SolidWorks? Your idea is good
because the cast aluminum transmission I would be replacing was done in some
guy's mother's garage and checking for flaws was not done. I've already
found serious flaws in other castings provided with the helicopter kit.

Stu Fields



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4087 (20090519) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

"Stuart Fields" wrote in message
...

"bildan" wrote in message
...
On May 18, 7:44 am, routund wrote:
wrote:
conclusions are similar to the ones you pointed to.


BTW, I don't think casting has any place in prototyping. Design the
parts with SolidWorks, email the file to a CNC shop who will mill them
from billet and ship the parts in a week. Machined billet parts are
FAR better than castings - and cheaper.

I like your idea. I'm looking at a new transmission, possibly planetary,
for my helicopter. The SolidWorks software is a bit expensive for just
prototyping a single item. Do you have any idea how to get this done
without having to layout a bunch of $ for SolidWorks? Your idea is good
because the cast aluminum transmission I would be replacing was done in
some guy's mother's garage and checking for flaws was not done. I've
already found serious flaws in other castings provided with the helicopter
kit.


Stu,

Draw it with anything, even pencil, and pay to have someone draw it in 3D.
Software and the skill to use it is like tooling itself. Unless you intend
to do more than one project, you can have it done for much less than you
will invest doing it yourself.

But I do agree about machining from billet. Unless you plan to produce in
quantity, castings of this complexity are a waste.

On May 19, 11:25*am, "Tim" wrote:
"Stuart Fields" wrote in message

...





"bildan" wrote in message
....
On May 18, 7:44 am, routund wrote:
wrote:
conclusions are similar to the ones you pointed to.

BTW, I don't think casting has any place in prototyping. *Design the
parts with SolidWorks, email the file to a CNC shop who will mill them
from billet and ship the parts in a week. *Machined billet parts are
FAR better than castings - and cheaper.

I like your idea. *I'm looking at a new transmission, possibly planetary,
for my helicopter. *The SolidWorks software is a bit expensive for just
prototyping a single item. *Do you have any idea how to get this done
without having to layout a bunch of $ for SolidWorks? *Your idea is good
because the cast aluminum transmission I would be replacing was done in
some guy's mother's garage and checking for flaws was not done. *I've
already found serious flaws in other castings provided with the helicopter
kit.

Stu,

Draw it with anything, even pencil, and pay to have someone draw it in 3D..
Software and the skill to use it is like tooling itself. Unless you intend
to do more than one project, you can have it done for much less than you
will invest doing it yourself.

But I do agree about machining from billet. Unless you plan to produce in
quantity, castings of this complexity are a waste.

Tim, Stu,

I just mentioned SolidWorks because it's popular. Any 3D CAD software
will work fine and the files will be accepted be almost any CNC shop.

That said, it's a good idea to learn something like Autosketch or
Autocad lite if you're going to build ANYTHING. There's a little bit
of a learning curve but you'll never stop using it. Doing your own
drawings is a great opportunity to catch errors in the design before
they get expensive.

By making your own 2D CAD drawings, you can email them to 3D CAD shops
for the finish work.

Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. Did that ever come to fruition?

On May 20, 2:01*am, Dancing Fingers wrote:
Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. *Did that ever come to fruition?

I've not heard of it.

Actually, the cylinders, pistons, rods and crank from the Honda 1800cc
Valkyrie flat-6 combined with a aircraft style case would hit the spot
for fans of smaller airplanes. However, it would still need a PSRU.

Nobody had mentioned the Rotec radials.
See: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

bildan wrote:
On May 20, 2:01 am, Dancing Fingers wrote:
Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. Did that ever come to fruition?

I've not heard of it.

Actually, the cylinders, pistons, rods and crank from the Honda 1800cc
Valkyrie flat-6 combined with a aircraft style case would hit the spot
for fans of smaller airplanes. However, it would still need a PSRU.


something like 260 pounds for 80 hp?

On May 20, 10:27*am, cavelamb wrote:
bildan wrote:
On May 20, 2:01 am, Dancing Fingers wrote:
Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. *Did that ever come to fruition?

I've not heard of it.

Actually, the cylinders, pistons, rods and crank from the Honda 1800cc
Valkyrie flat-6 combined with a aircraft style case would hit the spot
for fans of smaller airplanes. *However, it would still need a PSRU.

something like 260 pounds for 80 hp?

I wouldn't think so. The crank is light enough to use as a dumbbell
and that's heavier than the cylinder blocks. Just guessing of course,
but I'd say 180 lbs for 100HP which is better than an O-200.

bildan wrote:
On May 20, 10:27 am, cavelamb wrote:
bildan wrote:
On May 20, 2:01 am, Dancing Fingers wrote:
Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. Did that ever come to fruition?
I've not heard of it.
Actually, the cylinders, pistons, rods and crank from the Honda 1800cc
Valkyrie flat-6 combined with a aircraft style case would hit the spot
for fans of smaller airplanes. However, it would still need a PSRU.
something like 260 pounds for 80 hp?

I wouldn't think so. The crank is light enough to use as a dumbbell
and that's heavier than the cylinder blocks. Just guessing of course,
but I'd say 180 lbs for 100HP which is better than an O-200.

Better go check the Kitplanes article, because it was way heavy!

On May 20, 2:15 pm, bildan wrote:
I wouldn't think so. The crank is light enough to use as a dumbbell
and that's heavier than the cylinder blocks. Just guessing of course,
but I'd say 180 lbs for 100HP which is better than an O-200.

The TCDS says the O-200-A is 190 lb. My experience with the engine
makes me wonder about the 100-hp claim. The C-90 I flew had more pull.

Dan