X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Tracy" Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.5) with ESMTPS id 8003177 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:00:56 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by oibi136 with SMTP id i136so48309005oib.3 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:subject:references:from :in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:mime-version; bh=s4yeeJzGbUCGFAJ1wLOklKs7BstR8ebAFx+cqhoMUno=; b=rHhbSvSGzJ/SM0su9H1GgiZWpieQF3jywQoGBcRshntMm2kLYvubF/YGzzqZVm+uIw l28MwbEL6yk2goajHXmKpTQsTq9dGbxpIVwUNbaHutMT6mQ3pt71guZwGrLTXOEyMiq4 FsjraQxCaaykpr4DLcEhh2bxHApgFMxvmTwU0ssGgHrIfF54M0tH5k0UkJslYMzc0hkA nwC/fmCAkJMJRuRg3z+q0LcS+W17CrYwgdmJ8MwYLiWMq8emggfkHq6yy5XUutHvZF4z RnZba59eDh5xP+7iMH+fePbP4ie9MoOJPaHU7F18xo2/5DZkuJj2S+K+h+3o4BzPqCS2 Hxqg== X-Received: by 10.202.213.70 with SMTP id m67mr8834134oig.26.1442768419091; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:00:19 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.243.210.108] (36.sub-97-43-193.myvzw.com. [97.43.193.36]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id el4sm9096432obb.26.2015.09.20.10.00.08 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:00:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-3B8D81B0-D4A5-4909-B486-0C599ACDC4B1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru References: In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 10:40:55 -0600 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12H321) --Apple-Mail-3B8D81B0-D4A5-4909-B486-0C599ACDC4B1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I do, but not with me. Check back in October when I'm back home. The solid= coupler requires the use of an aluminum racing flywheel and a different spl= ine on the input shaft so a conversion is not a straight forward matter thou= gh. Tracy Sent from my iPad > On Sep 20, 2015, at 01:01, steve Izett wrote= : >=20 > Hi Tracy > Do you have diagrams etc for the solid coupler? > I have your RD1-C and would like to know how to convert to your latter sol= id design should I need it down the track. > Thanks > Steve Izett >=20 >=20 >> On 20 Sep 2015, at 9:34 am, Tracy wrote: >>=20 >> FWIW, the spline I used on the solid coupler cost $12. =20 >>=20 >> Tracy >>=20 >> Sent from my iPad >>=20 >>> On Sep 19, 2015, at 16:41, Neil Unger wrot= e: >>>=20 >>> Tracy, Have hear many whispers about your =E2=80=9Cinflexible=E2=80=9D = coupling, but just the thought makes me nervous. Most of the money on a co= upling is in the splined block that the engine drives, the extra Flex part i= s not a lot extra. Have al;ready has two made and destroyed both in testing= but the Poly and rubber (one each) survived. The poly is by far the cheape= st, but solid???? I just don=E2=80=99t feel right. Neil. >>> =20 >>> From: Tracy >>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:09 PM >>> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru >>> =20 >>> Looks like very nice work Neil, glad you picked up the ball and ran. I= had the same comment as Charlie but as long as you get a suitable prop the 3= .12 will work. Only down side is I think the minimum BSFC 'sweet spot' of t= he rotary (about 5000 - 5500 rpm) may be below the usable cruise settings if= propped for 8500 with a fixed pitch prop. Not a big deal though. When lo= oking at my flying expenses, fuel turns out to be about the cheapest item := -) >>> =20 >>> I would urge you to investigate 'going naked' with the damper. My direc= t coupler version is at least as smooth as the rubber coupled damper version= . Only downside is it may not be suitable for metal props but I doubt you c= ould find a suitable metal one for 3.12 ratio anyway. >>> =20 >>> Keep up the good work, >>> Tracy >>>=20 >>> Sent from my iPad >>>=20 >>>> On Sep 18, 2015, at 09:15, Charlie England wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> I understand about debugging what you've got, before going off in a new= direction. That's why I hated to bring it up now. :-) >>>>=20 >>>> The prop doesn't know how fast the engine is turning; it just knows how= fast *it* is turning, and how fast it's moving through the air. I think tha= t the problems start when the prop carver gets out of his comfort zone, whic= h is 2700 design rpm and around 72" maximum diameter (usually less). When di= ameter goes up to 74"-76" and design rpm starts to drop, they seem to get a b= it confused. For those of us who never expect to exceed 7500 rpm, with crui= se down around 5500-6000, a 3.12 ratio would mean prop at 2400 rpm max, and a= round 1900 at cruise. Nothing wrong with that if we could swing a 7 foot dia= meter prop, but with small, short legged a/c, you just can't do it.=20 >>>>=20 >>>> I couldn't find anything in my old emails about the prop you had proble= ms with. What were its specs & mfgr? Was the 6000 rpm static, or full thrott= le in flight at low altitude? Did you ever get your engine on a dyno? I know= what Lamar claimed for his p-port Renesis, but if those were 'corrected' dy= no numbers, they are pretty useless for real world flying at higher than sea= level and anything above 'standard day' temperatures (which almost never ha= ppens). 250 HP seems pretty optimistic for a normally aspirated 2 rotor actu= ally flying in an a/c, but I hope you can get it working. I've been very tem= pted to find another Renesis core & send the housings out to get them p-port= ed, & if you're successful, you just might push me over the edge... >>>>=20 >>>> Charlie >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On 9/17/2015 11:17 PM, Neil Unger wrote: >>>>> Charlie, As usual anything is possible. The 2.85 ratio is easier to a= lter the gear set , but by the time the =E2=80=9Clittle=E2=80=9D mods are do= ne the cost climbs yet again. May look at the possibility as all the drawin= gs are done and alterations are now much simpler. Will get the bugs out of t= his one first. Most prop makers that I went to just do not want to hear =E2= =80=9Crotary=E2=80=9D. The revs are there but the torque is not compared to= a lyc. Much to learn in this area. Regards, neil. >>>>> =20 >>>>> From: Charlie England >>>>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:44 AM >>>>> To: Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru >>>>> =20 >>>>> Hi Neil, >>>>> =20 >>>>> Congrats on your progress; it looks nice. I like the idea of being ab= le to source some of the parts locally, given that international shipping ca= n cost more than a lot of parts. >>>>> =20 >>>>> The damper issue is a real bummer. IIRC, Tracy's been running a later v= ersion of his 2.85 directly coupled to an aluminum racing flywheel. One or t= wo others have used light weight steel flywheels, but I think they were stil= l using Tracy's damper mechanism, which doesn't look too complicated to buil= d with precision machine tools that you obviously have access to. >>>>> =20 >>>>> I know you'll hate to hear this question, but....are there provisions t= o use the 2.85 ratio in your design? The reason I ask is that many of us hav= e no desire to turn the engine beyond 7500 rpm, and that wide ratio means cr= uise rpm at the prop of well below 2000 rpm. Most of us are flying planes th= at can't swing the 7-8 foot diameter prop needed to maintain efficiency at t= hose low prop rpms. It also complicates getting a prop made that will perfor= m correctly, since it's outside the area where most prop makers have worked.= It's confused some reputable prop makers here in the USA, even with the 2.8= 5 ratio. >>>>> =20 >>>>> Again, congrats on the new design, >>>>> =20 >>>>> Charlie >>>>> =20 >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Neil Unger wrote: >>>>>> Gents, >>>>>> Finally the first PSRU with a reduction of 3.12 to 1. = Pictured is the basic box which is heavily based on Tracy=E2=80=99s PSRU bu= t with the larger reduction and 2 oil lubricated thrust bearings on the pr= op shaft instead of a single sealed roller bearing in Tracy=E2=80=99s. This= psru will mount directly in place of Tracy's 2.85 reduction PSRU with no mo= dification. >>>>>> Now to put to test to see if the practice matches the theory. Al= ready found one fault. The =E2=80=9CO=E2=80=9D ring seal that seals the main= body of the PSRU to the base that attaches to the mounting plate is outside= all the attachment bolts, which means that the oil can wick down the bolts a= nd make a lovely mess of your pride and joy. Now looking for more faults as= this is easily fixed. Unlike Tracy's , this PSRU is totally sealed with O r= ings to ease dismantling with no clean up of whatever gasket sealer you have= had to use. >>>>>> Now the terrible part and still undecided as I am yet to cost a d= amper on the drive. Sadly it also is not cheap and may yet cost near $500 f= or a =E2=80=9Dbit of rubber=E2=80=9D. Then comes a mounting plate as made b= y Geoff Doddridge which he sells for around $400 USD. There is no point in m= e trying to compete with Geoff as he does a magnificent job at a cheap price= . Freight is always a horrible price so he makes the plate and there is no= freight from Aust to be added. >>>>>> The total cost in Aust dollars (including Geoff=E2=80=99s plate) w= ill be around the $5000 which equates to $3500 USD. Then freight of possibl= y $200. Currently looking at further reduction in price if you source the g= ear set locally saving on freight both ways to Aust and back. I will have t= o alter the way it is constructed so that all the mods can be done by you th= e builder. Still looking! >>>>>> So far the progress. Neil. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>>>>> Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary= /List.html >=20 --Apple-Mail-3B8D81B0-D4A5-4909-B486-0C599ACDC4B1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I do, but not with me.  Check bac= k in October when I'm back home.  The solid coupler requires the use of= an aluminum racing flywheel and a different spline on the input shaft so a c= onversion is not a straight forward matter though.

= Tracy

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 20, 2015, at 01:01, stev= e Izett <flyrotary@lancair= online.net> wrote:

Hi TracyDo you have diagrams etc for the solid coupler?
I have your RD1-C and would like to know how to convert to your latter= solid design should I need it down the track.
Thanks
Steve Izett


On 20 Sep 2015, at 9:34 am, Tracy <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:
FWIW, the spline I used on the solid coupl= er cost $12.  

Tracy

Sent from my iPad
=
On Sep 19, 2015, at 16:41, Neil Unger <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> w= rote:

Tracy,  Have hear many whispers about your =E2=80=9Cinf= lexible=E2=80=9D =20 coupling, but just the thought makes me nervous.  Most of the money on a= =20 coupling is in the splined block that the engine drives, the extra Flex part= is=20 not a lot extra.  Have al;ready has two made and destroyed both in test= ing=20 but the Poly and rubber (one each) survived.  The poly is by far the=20= cheapest, but solid????  I just don=E2=80=99t feel right.  Neil. <= /div>
 
From: Tracy
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 10:09 P= M
To: Rotary motors in a= ircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru
 
Looks like very nice work Neil, glad you picked up the ball a= nd=20 ran.   I had the same comment as Charlie but as long as you get a=20= suitable prop the 3.12 will work.  Only down side is I think the minimu= m=20 BSFC 'sweet spot' of the rotary (about 5000 - 5500 rpm) may be below the usa= ble=20 cruise settings if propped for 8500 with a fixed pitch prop.  Not a big= =20 deal though.   When looking at my flying expenses, fuel turns out t= o=20 be about the cheapest item  :-)
 
I would urge you to investigate 'going naked' with the dampe= r.  My=20 direct coupler version is at least as smooth as the rubber coupled damper=20= version.  Only downside is it may not be suitable for metal props but I= =20 doubt you could find a suitable metal one for 3.12 ratio anyway.
 
Keep up the good work,
Tracy

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 18, 2015, at 09:15, Charlie England &l= t;flyrotary@lancai= ronline.net>=20 wrote:

I understand about debugging what you've go= t,=20 before going off in a new direction. That's why I hated to bring it up now= .=20 :-)

The prop doesn't know how fast the engine= is turning; it just knows=20 how fast *it* is turning, and how fast it's moving through the air. I thin= k=20 that the problems start when the prop carver gets out of his comfort zone,= =20 which is 2700 design rpm and around 72" maximum diameter (usually less). W= hen=20 diameter goes up to 74"-76" and design rpm starts to drop, they seem to ge= t a=20 bit confused.  For those of us who never expect to exceed 7500 rpm, w= ith=20 cruise down around 5500-6000, a 3.12 ratio would mean prop at 2400 rpm max= ,=20 and around 1900 at cruise. Nothing wrong with that if we could swing a 7 f= oot=20 diameter prop, but with small, short legged a/c, you just can't do it.=20

I couldn't find anything in my old emails ab= out the prop you had=20 problems with. What were its specs & mfgr? Was the 6000 rpm static, or= =20 full throttle in flight at low altitude? Did you ever get your engine on a= =20 dyno? I know what Lamar claimed for his p-port Renesis, but if those were=20= 'corrected' dyno numbers, they are pretty useless for real world flying at= =20 higher than sea level and anything above 'standard day' temperatures (whic= h=20 almost never happens). 250 HP seems pretty optimistic for a normally aspir= ated=20 2 rotor actually flying in an a/c, but I hope you can get it working. I've= =20 been very tempted to find another Renesis core & send the housings out= to=20 get them p-ported, & if you're successful, you just might push me over= the=20 edge...

Charlie

=

On 9/17/2015 11:17 PM, Neil Unger=20 wrote:
Charlie,  As usual anything is possible.  The 2= .85 ratio is=20 easier to alter the gear set , but by the time the =E2=80=9Clittle=E2=80= =9D mods are done=20 the cost climbs yet again.  May look at the possibility as all the=20= drawings are done and alterations are now much simpler.  Will get t= he=20 bugs out of this one first.  Most prop makers that I went to just d= o=20 not want to hear =E2=80=9Crotary=E2=80=9D.  The revs are there but t= he torque is not=20 compared to a lyc.  Much to learn in this area.  Regards, = ;=20 neil.
 
From: Charlie England
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 12:44= AM
To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru
 
Hi Neil,=20
 
Congrats on your progress; it looks nice.  I like t= he idea of=20 being able to source some of the parts locally, given that international= =20 shipping can cost more than a lot of parts.
 
The damper issue is a real bummer. IIRC, Tracy's been ru= nning a later=20 version of his 2.85 directly coupled to an aluminum racing flywheel. One= or=20 two others have used light weight steel flywheels, but I think they were= =20 still using Tracy's damper mechanism, which doesn't look too complicated= to=20 build with precision machine tools that you obviously have access to.
 
I know you'll hate to hear this question, but....are the= re provisions=20 to use the 2.85 ratio in your design? The reason I ask is that many of u= s=20 have no desire to turn the engine beyond 7500 rpm, and that wide ratio m= eans=20 cruise rpm at the prop of well below 2000 rpm. Most of us are flying pla= nes=20 that can't swing the 7-8 foot diameter prop needed to maintain efficienc= y at=20 those low prop rpms. It also complicates getting a prop made that will=20= perform correctly, since it's outside the area where most prop makers ha= ve=20 worked. It's confused some reputable prop makers here in the USA, even w= ith=20 the 2.85 ratio.
 
Again, congrats on the new design,
 
Charlie
 
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Neil Unger <= span dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:
Gents,
         =     =20 Finally the first PSRU with a reduction of 3.12  to 1.  Pict= ured=20 is the basic box which is heavily based on Tracy=E2=80=99s PSRU but wi= th the=20 larger reduction and 2 oil lubricated thrust   bearings on t= he=20 prop shaft instead of a single sealed roller bearing in Tracy=E2=80=99= s. =20 This psru will mount directly in place of Tracy's 2.85 reduction PSRU w= ith=20 no modification.
    Now to put to test to see if the pr= actice matches=20 the theory.  Already found one fault. The =E2=80=9CO=E2=80=9D rin= g seal that seals=20 the main body of the PSRU to the base that attaches to the mounting pl= ate=20 is outside all the attachment bolts, which means that the oil can wick= =20 down the bolts and make a lovely mess of your pride and joy.  Now= =20 looking for more faults as this is easily fixed.  Unlike Tracy's ,= =20 this PSRU is totally sealed with O rings to ease dismantling with no c= lean=20 up of whatever gasket sealer you have had to use.
    Now the terrible part and still und= ecided as I am=20 yet to cost a damper on the drive.  Sadly it also is not cheap an= d=20 may yet cost near $500 for a =E2=80=9Dbit of rubber=E2=80=9D.  Th= en comes a mounting=20 plate as made by Geoff Doddridge which he sells for around $400 USD.&n= bsp;=20 There is no point in me trying to compete with Geoff as he does a=20 magnificent job at a cheap price.  Freight is always a horrible p= rice=20 so he makes the plate and there is  no freight from Aust to be=20= added.
    The total cost in Aust dollars (inc= luding Geoff=E2=80=99s=20 plate) will be around the $5000 which equates to $3500 USD.  Then= =20 freight of possibly $200.  Currently looking at further reduction= in=20 price if you source the gear set locally saving on freight both ways t= o=20 Aust and back.  I will have to alter the way it is constructed so= =20 that all the mods can be done by you the builder.  Still=20 looking!
    So far the progress. =20 Neil.

--
Homepage:=   http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and=20 UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html<= /a>

 


= --Apple-Mail-3B8D81B0-D4A5-4909-B486-0C599ACDC4B1--