Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #34596
From: Al Gietzen <ALVentures@cox.net>
Subject: Planetary gear re-drive
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:01:28 -0800
To: 'Rotary motors in aircraft' <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

My comment was somewhat ‘tongue in cheek’ as they say – not to be taken too seriously.  I understand that there isn’t anything about which you can’t find an extreme opinion; on either extreme.  As I fly my experimental aircraft with a one-of-a-kind experimental engine installation; and as the builder, I’m aware of the many of things that can go wrong.  The awareness is heightened when flying a plane that lands at close to 100 mph; and there is a lot of unfriendly terrain in my flight test area.

 

As was mentioned; clearly the lubrication is a key factor.  Using the engine oil for the gear drive makes me think that the suggestion of lightweight oils, as you might use in your car, is not the best idea.  A question I have is ‘What should be the limit on the oil exiting from the drive?’  At the end of a climb-out on a warm day, when the oil temp (back from the cooler) is getting to about 220F, I have seen 250-260F on the re-drive return oil line.  And is a synthetic better for the gear drive than a mineral based oil?

 

What is your take-off and cruise HP numbers - your probably within the

safety limits, with a reduced life expectancy being the most likely down

side.

George ( down under)

 

I don’t get much past about 5100-5200 rpm on takeoff and climb, so probably less than 220 hp.  Cruise is in the 200 hp neighborhood.  Should be within the capabilities of the C-6.

 

Al

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of kevin lane
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 11:23 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA 782 meeting

 

I brought this up because I was interested in further discussion.  as with

all the conversion aspects, the working environment for aircraft is always

different from the one the part was designed for.  for instance, I would

imagine that the truck would deliver quick reversals of torque and operate

typically at a much lesser rpm.  that must make some difference.  I assumed

that someone else with relevant background experience might also challenge

some of these statements.  when I was having Lycoming cylinder problems I

spoke with one shop that just ranted about ECI cylinders, they were crap

etc.... and he would swap me for 2nd life lycomings.  I found other shops

that didn't feel that way and had mine welded (they only had 800 hrs on

them).  since then I dodged the bullet on the ECI recall because mine were

an earlier forging, but, it shows there are many sides to every story, like

the blind men and the elephant.    kevin (white cane in hand!)

----- Original Message -----

From: "Al Gietzen" <ALVentures@cox.net>

To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 7:52 AM

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EAA 782 meeting

 

 

Ken talked about a friend who is a top

authority on transmissions and his love of ford t-6 gear systems, because

they keep him well employed.  he said this friend proceeded to show him a 55

 

gallon barrel of broken parts, not a Chevy or dodge part in there, all ford.

 

-------------

 

Gee; thanks.  Really ups my confidence flying a 20B with a Ford C-6

planetary reduction:).

 

Al

 

 

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/

 

 

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster