Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.133.182.165; envelope-from=canarder@frontiernet.net
Message-ID: <42BC4315.3020900@frontiernet.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:29:57 -0500
From: Jim Sower <canarder@frontiernet.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040514
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: test stands for HP measurement   was  Re: PP
 debate  was  Re: Single PP HP?
References: <list-1020428@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-1020428@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yeah, you're right.  I was just thinking about a test stand with 
radiator, fuel tank and water pump v. dyno with all the calibrated 
energy absorbing and calibration gear.  I didn't think of fuel control, 
ignition and all the attendant transducers, etc.  It would almost 
certainly be easier to swap blocks on the plane so long as it would bolt in.
Another brain fart that didn't much go anywhere ... Jim S.

Russell Duffy wrote:

> That's a really good idea.  You could use any prop that was flying on 
> a plane and giving known performance and static rpm as a benchmark and 
> go from there.  It would only give you static rpm which you could use 
> to estimate power for that rpm, but projecting that to higher rpm's 
> would seem to be more accurate than anything we've got now.
>
> How elaborate would something like that be and what would it cost? ... 
> Jim S.
>
>  Hi Jim,
>  
> I'm still churning through the options, but I think it might be easier 
> to just swap engines on the plane than to recreate all the systems on 
> a stand.  Heck, a single rotor would probably fly the RV-3 just fine.  
> Might make sport pilot rules too :-)
>  
> Rusty
>