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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead
wrote: The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems). Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of pluses and minuses. Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load. BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't exactly babied either. Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design. But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every takeoff. By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to work on that thing. Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had plenty of reserve. I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front. Sorry, that should be NSI. I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web broke and it was a high pucker factor. I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know. Corky Scott |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"Corky Scott" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead wrote: The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems). Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of pluses and minuses. Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load. BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't exactly babied either. Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design. But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every takeoff. By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to work on that thing. Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had plenty of reserve. I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front. Sorry, that should be NSI. I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web broke and it was a high pucker factor. I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know. Corky Scott Corky, Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER: http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm Rick Pellicciotti http://www.spitfire.org |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Rick Pellicciotti wrote:
"Corky Scott" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead wrote: The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems). Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of pluses and minuses. Most manufacturers seem to take the attitude that big is strong and bigger is stronger. In order to resist the impulses and resonances you mention, they just design huge gears to take the load. BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't exactly babied either. Yup, the Roll Royce Merlin uses a spur gear reduction drive, driven off a torque tube. Those gears are some big. Every single one of the big radials also used a reduction drive, but was a planetary type, not spur. I think the low TBO was more due to the nature of the treatment of the engine during combat than something inherent in the design. But come to think of it, they still don't have a very high TBO even now, when they don't have to be run up to military power for every takeoff. By the way, the Rolls Royce Griffon engine was sort of two 12 cylinder engines siamesed together for a total of 24 cylinders. I'd hate to work on that thing. Also...How did the guys make out using the Olds chain drive in the Legend? It "appeared" to work great for at least a short time, but they were running 400 to 500 HP through a chain that was used in a drive train that only had about 200 HP on the other end. When I talked to the one guy at Oshkosh some years back he thought it had plenty of reserve. I always like that airplane. Last I saw it had a turbine up front. Sorry, that should be NSI. I know when he used the original "so called" chevy big block aluminum based engine he felt the front web was the weak spot. Course that was right after planting his IV_P off the end of the runway when the web broke. (or did he make it back on that one?) At any rate the web broke and it was a high pucker factor. I hadn't heard that the web broke. The story I got was that they did some computer analysis of the engine design and factored in the prop forces that would be transferred to the block by the PSRU and decided to add material to the block where the PSRU bolted on. Of course, Jim could have told me this AFTER the engine broke, don't know. Corky Scott Corky, Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER: http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm Rick Pellicciotti http://www.spitfire.org However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines: 1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the Merlin engined aircraft. I have been told that it killed a few unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on take-off. :-( 2 On the Lancaster, and on at least one single engined attack aircraft (I can't recall the name), it was equipped with a pair of concentric contra-rotating propellers. As you say, though, the engine itself was similar but BIGGER. Regards, Peter |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Corky Scott wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:41:37 -0600, Big John wrote: Corky Have you enough ammunition on auto engines to stop the nit picking in this group? Both Lyc and Con started life with auto engines G Big John Big John, to the best of my knowledge, I try not to nitpick. I try to present facts as I know them. I believe that there are various auto engines that can be successfully converted and I believe it strongly enough that I'm assembling a Ford V6 in my shop that will be the engine I fly behind. You weren't here when this subject was first aired many years ago, but there were many sceptics... actually that's not a strong enough word. There were some extremely vocal critics of the concept who felt that no auto engine would work in an airplane. One of them was an auto engineer, a guy who used to work for the Chaparal Racing Team with Jim Hall. He was absolutely positive that V configured auto engines would disintegrate (literally) under the stress. He also believed they could not cool because the coolant passages were too small and the cylinders too close together. He was wrong. In order to build a reliable auto conversion, you do have to do your homework. You have to safety wire just about everything that could come off including the oil pan bolts. You have to build using accepted aviation practices. There have been guys who screwed gas or oil lines into the block and then ran them to the firewall. They broke. You can't mount pipes solidly to the block and run them for any distance, prop vibration will eventually crack them. The guy who developed the Ford V6 discovered that the stud that holds the air filter can and will unscrew and drop into the engine, if you don't safety wire it. How did he discover this? Because it did. It was one of the many flights in which he coasted back to the runway. By now, many guys have successfully built and flown the Ford V6. One guy accumulated more than 2,000 hours without anything falling off or failing. Others are in the over a thousand hours hobbs time category. For some reason, success stories like this don't seem to matter to those who feel using an auto engine won't work. I do intend to test run the engine extensively. I'm fabricating an engine test stand along with the engine assembly process. While it's true this doesn't exactly duplicate the stresses encountered during flight, it's the best I can do, and better than just hanging it on the airframe and testing the engine during the very first flight. One thing at a time please. Corky Scott First, I apologize for the delayed posting in the middle of a thread. I can only say that it has been a strange week ... My personal view, not fully substantiated be research, is that most (and possibly all) of the current automotive engines can be successfully converted for aircraft use. However many of them have shortcomings that make them less attractive. I might not bother with an engine that I expect to have significant vibration modes other than torsion. For example; I doubt that I would convert any of the three cylinder engines, even if it had balance shafts, as an inline four could be a much smoother installation. My hypothesis is that the pitch oscillation of the three cylinder, and possibly some of the 90 degree vee six, engines would add stresses to the propeller and PSRU. OTOH, there are a lot of 90 degree vee six engines flying... Probably the best question is not whether an automotive engine can be made reliable; but whether a purpose-built engine is available and competitively priced for the application. For example, Jabiru offers ram air cooled engines of 80 and 120 horsepower; provided that the aircraft is fast enough to use a 60 inch diameter prop. Rotax offers engines with a hybrid cooling scheme... As I recall, Blanton's conversion was originally for glider towing. According to the story I was told, the reduction drive allowed the Ford vee six to produce thrust similar to a much more powerful direct drive aircraft engine--at towing speeds. Unfortunately, the story later circulated that the engine produced mathematically ridiculous amounts of horsepower... So, I may eventually build with an automotive conversion. Or may not. The choice is not "open and shut". Regards, Peter |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Roger
Merlin (in P-51) turned 3000 rpm on take off. Prop speed was 1500 rpm (2 to 1 reduction gearing). Engine life was about 250+/- hrs (not in combat). Probably happened but never heard of the reduction gearing 'going west'. Was not a 'common' failure mode to be worrried about. Big John On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 02:05:35 GMT, Roger Halstead wrote: On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 12:57:49 GMT, (Corky Scott) wrote: On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 17:20:55 GMT, (Corky Scott) wrote: The PSRU was the one thing he felt should be done by people who knew how to do them, and contracted NIS to develop one. To make a long story short, the PSRU did not work well and things have been in litigation for a while. Making a PSRU to handle 120 to 180 horsepower is one thing, making one to handle over 400 horsepower is something entirely different. Corky Scott Thanks Corky, I appreciate the info. As I see it (and I don't know squat about PSRUs except their goal) a high ratio PSRU as used in a turbo prop which has a very high ratio (planetary) is easier to build than say the 2:1 or 3:1, BUT the planetary also has the advantage in being used on an engine without pulses being inherent in their operation. The life of a PSRU on a piston engine has to be complicated. It not only has to handle linear torque and thrust, but virtually any other imaginable angle as well. Then it has to be designed to avoid any resonances with those power train pulses AND take the positive and negative torque without beating the snot out of the gears which means next to nothing for slack (which brings its own set of problems). Helical, double helical, spur, planatery...each with it's own set of pluses and minuses. BUT, didn't the big 12 and 16 cylinder Vs in WWII have PSRUs? Course those engines had very short TBOs too. Then again they weren't exactly babied either. ----clip---- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm
wrote: However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines: 1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the Merlin engined aircraft. I have been told that it killed a few unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on take-off. :-( Regards, Peter ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Really. Who told you such? Sounds like wannabee myth and legend without some serious documentation. Barnyard BOb - over 50 years of successful flight |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"karel adams" wrote in message
... . . . he's certainly a serious guy with a lot of flying hours (though less than UB of course) and he's a university teacher besides. He's a pilot AND a university teacher? And you believe ANYTHING he says? Wow! Rich S. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"RR Urban" wrote in message ... On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 15:13:03 GMT, Peter Dohm wrote: However, there were at least two variants of Rolls Royce Griffon engines: 1 On the Spitfire, it had a single five bladed propeller which rotated in the reverse direction from the propeller on the Merlin engined aircraft. All Griffon engines rotated in the opposite direction of the Merlin. I have been told that it killed a few unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on take-off. :-( Regards, Peter ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I don't believe this for a minute. Pilots put in rudder inputs based on what the airplane is DOING, not what it is expected to do. I fly an airplane (from time to time) that requires full left rudder at the start of the takeoff roll (Nanchang CJ-6, left turning engine, non steerable nose wheel). When I get out of it and get back in my Waco (right turning engine, tailwheel) I don't start steering it to the left automatically, I do whatever I have to do with the rudders to keep it straight. There have been many times that I needed full left rudder at the start of my takeoff with the Waco (hard crosswind from the right). Rick Pellicciotti |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:27:25 -0600, "Rick Pellicciotti"
wrote: Sorry, but the Griffon was a V-12 like the Merlin, just BIGGER: http://www.home.aone.net.au/shack_one/rolls.htm Rick Pellicciotti http://www.spitfire.org Sorry, my bad. I was thinking of the Napier Sabre type H engine. It was used in the Typhoon and Tempest. See: http://www.eagle.ca/~harry/aircraft/tempest/sabre/ Corky Scott |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I have been told that it killed a few unwary pilots who forgot and pressed the wrong rudder pedal on take-off. :-( Regards, Peter ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Really. Who told you such? Sounds like wannabee myth and legend without some serious documentation. I was told about serious difficulties for pilots converting (though not about casualties ) in exactly this story in my PPL ground course. The teacher's identity is available though not on this forum, but he's certainly a serious guy with a lot of flying hours (though less than UB of course) and he's a university teacher besides. Just before this, he had explained that the TO procedure for powerful fighters like the P51 Mustang prescribed several precise steps of adding power and corrective steering, with lifting the tail somewhere in between. KA - first flight real soon now +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sorry Karel, All really experienced pilots I know... just FLY THE AIRPLANE when they are through reading 'the book'. Your instructor may be a serious guy as a professor, but as a first class pilot, I have some reservations. Read Rick Pellicciotti's post and you will be on the right track, IMHO. Maybe BIg John, as an experienced P-51 pilot, will add to your knowledge base about P-51 TO procedures. By the book....AND by his personal experience. What say you, John? g FWIW.... No question, the military has 'numbers' for everything. As aviation cadets in the '50's, the USAF had us memorize tons and tons of precise numbers. ****... they even had exact procedures for us underclassmen on how to eat a military meal. It was a bitch Karel, a real bitch ! Half the guys washed out early on. Barnyard BOb - first flight way over 50 years ago. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Single-Seat Accident Records (Was BD-5B) | Ron Wanttaja | Home Built | 41 | November 20th 03 05:39 AM |
Objective Engine Discussion | Rick Maddy | Home Built | 26 | October 14th 03 04:46 AM |
FS: O-235C1 Lycoming engine (core) | Del Rawlins | Home Built | 0 | October 8th 03 09:46 PM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |