Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.166.240.5; envelope-from=jackoford@theofficenet.com
Message-ID: <00ad01c5032b$b7570e20$0200a8c0@jack>
From: "Jack Ford" <jackoford@theofficenet.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-620954@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Flex plate <> Flywheel [FlyRotary] Re: flexplate
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:17:48 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ernest,

Are you sure that the "peak torque" number you're looking at isn't at the
propeller, instead of the flywheel?
Would make more sense. She'll gain a bunch depending on the gear ratio.

Jack Ford
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristl@cisco.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:37 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Flex plate <> Flywheel [FlyRotary] Re: flexplate


> Lehanover@aol.com wrote:
>
> >My best race engine had 154.3 foot pounds at 7,800 RPM (229.4 HP)
> >Best power at 9,400 RPM (244.9 HP) 136.7 foot pounds.
> >
> >That 800 foot pounds at 7,800 would give you 1,188 HP.
> >
> >Probably not a factor.   RPM X Torque / 5252 = HP
> >
> >The flex plate is not a problem.
> >
> >Lynn E. Hanover
> >
> >
>
> I'm with you, Lynn, and I agree with your math and the fact that the
> bolts are strong enough.  But the 800ft/lb (right or wrong) was
> referring to the peak torque, which will be significantly greater than
> the average torque which would be derived from the HP figures.
>
> I just think that it's an important point that anything in the
> drivetrain should be designed with the peak torque in mind. (lest we
> doth shaketh the lesser pieces, and the airplane doth falleth from the
sky).
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>