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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
"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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
"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. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
Years ago there was an article in Kitplanes about someone trying to
use a Honda Goldwing engine. Did that ever come to fruition? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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/ |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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? |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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! |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
what engines are making successful aero engine conversions?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Zero time Aero Vee / Monnett engine | [email protected] | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | November 30th 05 06:02 AM |