|
Message
What was the latest problem with the single development, was it the
torsional reversals. The last I heard was you were going softer with the damper
material - did that work out?
Hi
George,
The last
straw was the new damper arrangement. Going from a 60 durometer to a 50
durometer made some difference. I then hacked up one of the 60 durometer
dampers so it would be softer, and have more flex. With that one,
I felt like the problem was gone.
After
some thought (staring it into submission), I figured out a way to make a
steel adapter to allow me to couple two 50 durometer dampers in series, and
still fit where it needed to go. After spending almost a week working on
it, and being very proud of what I was able to make on my home 3-in-1 machine, I
finally gave it a try. Unfortunately, it wasn't
good.
This was a
classic case of "if a little more is good, then a lot more will be great".
I ended up with a damper that was so soft, and had so much play that it was like
a rubber band. The result was almost as scary as that wacky
peroxide rotorcraft video I posted. The engine almost tore my test
stand apart before I could shut it down, and I'm probably lucky it didn't
chop me to bits just for spite. I had the video running, but all I
got was "memory card error" when I tried to view
it.
While
this damper didn't work out as planned, there are still other solutions I
could try, and I'm sure it's possible to make this work.
Unfortunately, I've already spent almost 3 years (time flies) messing with this,
and there's just no escaping the fact that it's going to be too heavy to be a
912S replacement. Until someone manufactures a better 100 HP rotary
solution (two rotor I hope), that they are actually willing to sell for
aircraft use, I'm afraid the 100 HP rotary isn't going to be much of an
option. The 912S so desperately needs competition...
Rusty
(UAVP)
|