X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com From: "Stephen Izett" Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.1.5) with ESMTPS id 8003556 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 16:47:43 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.220.43; envelope-from=steveize@gmail.com Received: by padhk3 with SMTP id hk3so96972701pad.3 for ; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:47:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to; bh=r9F+vHFt0cZTAkkGoRkX0M6QHcIem05eOc9Kfa9urSI=; b=Q1TcLNlTRgjrSelpyWWraO1Ut4wM3C+9F/d2rPzqofxRvGYrNDXzxpP1x+zBNbhlSB V6vpBSD8tQTvRYZYasVi8ym6hqohQRfJKRH0DRo3pPvBeUDwaf9hMk9v7SpSL3VjhRdm Xjgm8fJv1uuEaQRTNU1vxKuZKcFPB+A33xk60+Sa/guE4nAusBNFIBfwIbfUnHk8iE8C d+m0Ik78IlBurpXah8ghQJMTRuncrdgqujKDVG84C+udozCIklOsjCkQDUpdCSaaQKTk o1gKKS9Zs2+0nx7+9zVAuGm4aUhfgX5HYEbPaeoFaOo24KCzCwdoCoI9fQFvm+oHp3BK Xr1w== X-Received: by 10.68.57.238 with SMTP id l14mr20443934pbq.150.1442782026980; Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:47:06 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from [10.1.1.5] (58-7-132-180.dyn.iinet.net.au. [58.7.132.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hx2sm333443pbc.67.2015.09.20.13.47.03 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 20 Sep 2015 13:47:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-From: Stephen Izett Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_51DF2752-4D3C-417F-8BBB-9349551397DC" Message-Id: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2102\)) Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New psru Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 04:46:59 +0800 References: To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2102) --Apple-Mail=_51DF2752-4D3C-417F-8BBB-9349551397DC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Thanks. Will do. Steve > On 21 Sep 2015, at 12:40 am, Tracy = wrote: >=20 > 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 spline on the input shaft so a conversion is not a straight = forward matter though. >=20 > Tracy >=20 > Sent from my iPad >=20 > 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 solid 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 > wrote: >>>=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 coupling is in the splined block that the engine drives, the extra = Flex part is 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 cheapest, 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 the 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 looking 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 = direct 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 could 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 that the problems start when the prop carver gets out of = his comfort zone, which is 2700 design rpm and around 72" maximum = diameter (usually less). When diameter goes up to 74"-76" and design rpm = starts to drop, they seem to get a bit confused. For those of us who = never expect to exceed 7500 rpm, with cruise down around 5500-6000, a = 3.12 ratio would mean prop at 2400 rpm max, and around 1900 at cruise. = Nothing wrong with that if we could swing a 7 foot diameter 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 = problems with. What were its specs & mfgr? Was the 6000 rpm static, or = full throttle 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' dyno numbers, they are pretty useless for real world = flying at higher than sea level and anything above 'standard day' = temperatures (which almost never happens). 250 HP seems pretty = optimistic for a normally aspirated 2 rotor actually flying in an a/c, = but I hope you can get it working. I've been very tempted to find = another Renesis core & send the housings out to get them p-ported, & 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 alter the gear set , but by the time the =E2=80=9Clittle=E2=80=9D= mods are done the cost climbs yet again. May look at the possibility = as all the drawings are done and alterations are now much simpler. Will = get the bugs out of this 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 able to source some of the parts locally, given that international = shipping can cost more than a lot of parts. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> The damper issue is a real bummer. IIRC, Tracy's been running a = later version of his 2.85 directly coupled to an aluminum racing = flywheel. One or two others have used light weight steel flywheels, but = I think they were still using Tracy's damper mechanism, which doesn't = look too complicated to build with precision machine tools that you = obviously have access to. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> I know you'll hate to hear this question, but....are there = provisions to use the 2.85 ratio in your design? The reason I ask is = that many of us have no desire to turn the engine beyond 7500 rpm, and = that wide ratio means cruise rpm at the prop of well below 2000 rpm. = Most of us are flying planes that can't swing the 7-8 foot diameter prop = needed to maintain efficiency at those low prop rpms. It also = complicates getting a prop made that will perform 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 2.85 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 but with the larger reduction and 2 oil lubricated thrust = bearings on the prop 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 modification. >>>>>> Now to put to test to see if the practice matches the theory. = Already 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 and 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 rings 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 damper on the drive. Sadly it also is not cheap and may yet cost near = $500 for a =E2=80=9Dbit of rubber=E2=80=9D. Then comes a mounting plate = as made by Geoff Doddridge which he sells for around $400 USD. There is = no point in me 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) will be around the $5000 which equates to $3500 USD. Then = freight of possibly $200. Currently looking at further reduction in = price if you source the gear set locally saving on freight both ways to = Aust and back. I will have to alter the way it is constructed so that = all the mods can be done by you the 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 >>>>>> =20 >>>>>=20 >>=20 --Apple-Mail=_51DF2752-4D3C-417F-8BBB-9349551397DC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Thanks. Will do.
Steve
On 21 = Sep 2015, at 12:40 am, Tracy <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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 = spline on the input shaft so a conversion is not a straight forward = matter though.

Tracy

Sent from my = iPad

On Sep 20, 2015, at 01:01, = steve Izett <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

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 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 coupler cost $12.  

Tracy

Sent = from my iPad

On Sep 19, 2015, at = 16:41, Neil Unger <flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

Tracy,  Have hear many whispers about your = =E2=80=9Cinflexible=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 = testing=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.
 
From: Tracy
Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 = 10:09 PM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New = psru
 
Looks like very nice work Neil, glad you picked up the = ball and=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 = minimum=20 BSFC 'sweet spot' of the rotary (about 5000 - 5500 rpm) may be below the = usable=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 to=20 be about the cheapest item  :-)
 
I would urge you to investigate 'going naked' with the = damper.  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 <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:

I understand about debugging what = you've got,=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 = think=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). When=20 diameter goes up to 74"-76" and design rpm starts to drop, they seem = to get a=20 bit confused.  For those of us who never expect to exceed 7500 = rpm, with=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 foot=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 about 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 = (which=20 almost never happens). 250 HP seems pretty optimistic for a normally = aspirated=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 the=20 bugs out of this one first.  Most prop makers that I went to = just do=20 not want to hear =E2=80=9Crotary=E2=80=9D.  The revs are there = but the 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 the 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 running 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 = there provisions=20 to use the 2.85 ratio in your design? The reason I ask is that many = of us=20 have no desire to turn the engine beyond 7500 rpm, and that wide = ratio means=20 cruise rpm at the prop of well below 2000 rpm. Most of us are flying = planes=20 that can't swing the 7-8 foot diameter prop needed to maintain = efficiency 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 have=20 worked. It's confused some reputable prop makers here in the USA, = even with=20 the 2.85 ratio.
 
Again, congrats on the new design,
 
Charlie
 
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Neil = Unger <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>=20 wrote:
Gents,
          &nb= sp;  =20 Finally the first PSRU with a reduction of 3.12  to 1.  = Pictured=20 is the basic box which is heavily based on Tracy=E2=80=99s PSRU = but with the=20 larger reduction and 2 oil lubricated thrust   bearings = on the=20 prop shaft instead of a single sealed roller bearing in = Tracy=E2=80=99s. =20 This psru will mount directly in place of Tracy's 2.85 reduction = PSRU with=20 no modification.
    Now to put to test to see if = the practice matches=20 the theory.  Already found one fault. The =E2=80=9CO=E2=80=9D = ring seal that seals=20 the main body of the PSRU to the base that attaches to the = mounting plate=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 clean=20 up of whatever gasket sealer you have had to use.
    Now the terrible part and still = undecided as I am=20 yet to cost a damper on the drive.  Sadly it also is not = cheap and=20 may yet cost near $500 for a =E2=80=9Dbit of rubber=E2=80=9D.  = Then comes a mounting=20 plate as made by Geoff Doddridge which he sells for around $400 = USD. =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 price=20 so he makes the plate and there is  no freight from Aust to = be=20 added.
    The total cost in Aust dollars = (including 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 to=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<= br class=3D"">
 



= --Apple-Mail=_51DF2752-4D3C-417F-8BBB-9349551397DC--