X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.15) with ESMTP id 3791299 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:33:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090801123317089.EEKB557@cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com> for ; Sat, 1 Aug 2009 12:33:17 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 and Ed's EFISM - a great combination Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 08:49:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA1284.F28C3B60" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcoSdfOMqD49DV4/RGGWEx8xlZ9LBAAMDy/g X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20090801123317089.EEKB557@cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA1284.F28C3B60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit No problem, George, you are certainly correct that the RWS was a great improvement over the Ross. I still have my Ross thinking at some point I might have a machine shop make some changes - but, then there is really no point. The Ross gearbox did have a somewhat "prettier" bell housing - but, hey, functionality is what its all about under the hood .er. cowl. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Saturday, August 01, 2009 3:01 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 and Ed's EFISM - a great combination Ed, I stand corrected. I merely wanted to point out (to the initiated) the fact that RWS was an advancement in and improvement on the Ross. All your points are well made. George ( down under) Actually, George, The RWS drive was not just a redevelopment of the Ross drive. Tracy basically started from scratch and engineered a redrive that was designed to meet certain objectives while achieving a reasonable cost. There is no other redrive I am familiar with that has anywhere near the number of flying hours that the RWS redrive has with none of the problems associated with the Ross. While there is a superficial similarly to the Ross (Prop on one end and rotary on the other, planetary gears in the middle {:>)) in appearance, the internals are considerably ahead of anything Ross had. Pressure lubrication of the prop shaft for one thing, an integral thrust bearing for another, a removable propeller shaft for yet another, full oil pressure lubrication. The Ross drive required a restrictor in the oil line to (can you believe this) reduce oil pressure - otherwise the thing leaked like crazy - even with the restrictor, the rear seal frequently was a leaky mess. But, reducing the oil pressure was one reason the Ross had marginal lubrication in my opinion. Even then, the oil distribution inside the Ross was also not well designed. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to get a Ross - because it was the only thing around at the time. Had old man, Lou Ross, lived longer he may have eventually fixed a lot of these issues, but unfortunately he did not and I won't go into the situation with his son, Chris. But, we are fortunate that Tracy took on this challenge and did it right. One thing I really appreciate about the RWS design is that it has a considerably different internal set up with easily replaceable parts - which was not the case with the Ross. If you wanted to completely disassembly a Ross unit you most likely had to take it to a machine shop. Just wanted to make it clear that in my opinion the RWS should not be associated with the Ross unit which many have found shortcomings in. Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 5:20 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EC2 and Ed's EFISM - a great combination Steve, The Ross drive was redeveloped by Tracy Crook of Real World Solutions (RWS). Tracy now uses the 6 planet planetary (Ford Unit) and is about the best you will get weight wise and value for money. There are other similar units - all have slightly different construction, however Tracy's is well proven. I will probably make my own, but only because of the tyranny of distance and associated costs. George (down under). Steve, I went with the RD-1B PSRU from RWS. T Mann __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com ------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA1284.F28C3B60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   No problem, George, = you are certainly correct that the RWS was a great improvement over the Ross.  I = still have my Ross thinking at some point I might have a machine shop make some = changes – but, then there is really no point.  The Ross gearbox did have a = somewhat “prettier” bell housing – but, hey, functionality is what its all about under = the hood …er… cowl.

 

Ed

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Saturday, August = 01, 2009 3:01 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = EC2 and Ed's EFISM - a great combination

 

Ed,

I stand corrected.

I merely wanted to point out (to the initiated) the = fact that RWS was an advancement in and improvement on the = Ross.

All your points are well = made.

George ( down under)

 

Actually, George, The RWS drive was = not just a redevelopment of the Ross drive. =  

 

Tracy basically started from scratch and engineered a redrive = that was designed to meet certain objectives while achieving a reasonable cost.   There is no other redrive I am familiar with that has = anywhere near the number of flying hours that the RWS redrive has with none of the = problems associated with the Ross.

 

While there is a superficial = similarly to the Ross (Prop on one end and rotary on the other, planetary gears in = the middle {:>)) in appearance, the internals are considerably ahead of = anything Ross had.  Pressure lubrication of the prop shaft for one thing, an integral thrust bearing for another, a removable propeller shaft for yet another, full oil pressure lubrication.  The Ross drive required a restrictor in the oil line to (can you believe this) reduce oil pressure – otherwise the thing leaked like crazy – even with the = restrictor, the rear seal frequently was a leaky mess.  But, reducing the oil = pressure was one reason the Ross had marginal lubrication in my opinion. Even = then, the oil distribution inside the Ross was also not well designed. =

 

Don’t get me wrong, I was = glad to get a Ross – because it was the only thing around at the = time.  Had old man, Lou Ross, lived longer he may have eventually fixed a lot of = these issues, but unfortunately he did not and I won’t go into the = situation with his son, Chris.  But, we are fortunate that Tracy took on this challenge and did = it right.  

 

One thing I really appreciate about = the RWS design is that it has a considerably different internal set up with = easily replaceable parts – which was not the case with the Ross.  If = you wanted to completely disassembly a Ross unit you most likely had to take = it to a machine shop.

 

Just wanted to make it clear that = in my opinion the RWS should not be associated with the Ross unit which many = have found shortcomings in.

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of George Lendich
Sent: Friday, July 31, = 2009 5:20 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = EC2 and Ed's EFISM - a great combination

 

 

Steve,

The Ross drive was redeveloped by Tracy Crook of Real = World Solutions (RWS). Tracy now uses the 6 planet planetary (Ford Unit) and is about the best you = will get  weight wise and value for money.

 

There are other similar units - all have = slightly different construction, however Tracy's is well proven. I will probably make my own, but only because of the = tyranny of distance and associated costs.

George (down under).

 

Steve,<= /o:p>

I went with = the RD-1B PSRU from RWS.

 <= /o:p>

T = Mann



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus = signature database 3267 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

------=_NextPart_000_003C_01CA1284.F28C3B60--