AN ENGINE FOR HOMEBUILDERS

[Bob]

As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
Volkswagen conversions. While such conversions may be as large as
140cid (2332cc) when using a Type I crankcase -- and up to 170cid
(2884cc) if you begin with the heavier Type IV -- the SUSTAINABLE
output of these engines is thermally limited by the design of their
heads, which were designed for a 40hp engine. But the root problem is
much worse than many imagine.

In a recent thread in this Group it was pointed out that in some
locales the aircooled Volkswagen engines have become rare and the
price of a suitable conversion. This makes any discussion of the most
appropriate VW conversion moot since we are running out of VW's to
convert.

This lead to a general discussion regarding engines in general which
evolved into several specific messages discussing the conversion of
other, water-cooled engines.

Using history as my guide it appears that the ideal engine for home-
builders has already come and gone. It was the Pobjoy radial, first
built in 1926 and abandoned at the close of World War II. The rights
to the 7-cylinder, 130 lb, 75hp engine is presently held by the same
people who manufacture the Rotax, who have no plans for its re-
introduction, although its STC remains valid. This geared (double-
herringbone) radial was rated at 75hp @ 3000 rpm, 85hp @ 3300, with a
TBO between 1500 and 2000 hours. The exceptional TBO was largely due
to the incorporation of a centrifugal oil filter, a feature not seen
on other engines until the mid-1950's. With equal-length intake
runners and a heated intake manifold, the engine was remarkably
efficient, having a specific fuel consumption which rivaled that of
many large radials of the future (SFC 0.485 to 0.504). It managed to
do all that whilst burning 70 octane fuel using a CR of 6.5:1. This
outstanding thermal efficiency was largely due to the elimination of
ALL plain bearings, which are ball, needle or roller through-out.

Despite its sophistication his engine has a number of features that
make it a near perfect match for most of today's homebuilts.
Paramount among them is the high percentage of identical parts, such
as the cylinders, intake manifold(s) and valve train which make the
engine an excellent candidate for 'kitting.' It's weight of only 130
pounds is partly reflected by its small size. The cylinders are 75mm
bore (same as the early VW) by 87mm stroke, a classic high-torque
'under-square' design. Fully mantled and installed, the engine is
less than 24" in diameter. The 75mm pistons are fitted to flanged,
cast-iron barrels which are threaded to the dual-plug, cast aluminum
heads in what was to become an industry-wide technique.

At the time of its inception its designer understood that it could not
compete for price with the mono-bloc 4-cyl in-line engines being
produced by de Havilland but felt there was still a market for an
engine that got its power and fuel economy from a design having
inherently greater efficiency. This proved correct and for the next
twenty years Pobjoy engines went on to power an impressive number of
winning racers as well as setting many long-distance records (ie,
England to Australia; London to Cape Town, etc.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for least-cost, as mentioned above, the key factors were recognized
shortly after World War I, when the useful life of an engine was
measured in tens of hours. This lead to a family of strudy in-line
engine that remain in production today, an by doing so offer the
amateur builder of airplanes a well marked path to follow.

The least expensive engine will always be the one which is
manufactured in the largest numbers. In countries having few
petroleum resources -- where the price of fuel will always be a
determining factor -- the engine most commonly available will tend to
be quite small, typically 1300cc or less. In order to gain sufficient
torque to power a vehicle, these small engines will usually be fitted
with a cam that puts the power-curve at or above 3000rpm. These
engines are of little use for driving the propeller directly since the
propeller needs an rpm of 1500 to 2500 for best efficiency under
Standard Day conditions. It is possible to re-grind the cam so as to
move the torque-peak into the range most suitable for propellers but
the odds are, with a displacement of 1300cc or less, the amount of
thrust from a directly-driven propeller will not be enough to fly the
typical amateur-built design.

If a suitable Propeller Speed Reduction Unit (PSRU) is available, it
will have a radical effect on the equation. But it will also have a
remarkable effect on the WEIGHT, in that a PSRU of suitable
durability.

---------------------------------------------------------------

In much of the world the most practical engine for conversion will be
an in-line, liquid-cooled 4-cylinder engine having a displacement
between 1500 and 2000 cc. The propeller will be mounted directly to
the clutch-end of the crankshaft using an aluminum spool to extend the
propeller beyond the engine's transmission flange. Ideally, the
manufacturer of the engine will offer a range of cams. By rpm by
application is typically Marine Engine = highest rpm/torque curve,
Automobile Engine = high rpm/torque curve, Truck Engine = medium rpm/
torque curve, and Industrial Engine = lowest rpm/torque curve.

With the exception of the cam, which should be swapped to give maximum
torque at the lowest rpm, such an engine may be used WITHOUT further
conversion. However, it's high weight will limit its use to Single-
Place designs having a wing area typically of 120 square feet or more.
While the engine may be installed in aircraft having less wing area,
wing-loading will result in a stall and landing speed that may be
unacceptably high.

The most successful of several weight reduction efforts will be to
convert the engine to Composite Cooling, in which the heads are liquid-
cooled, the cylinder barrels and sump are air-cooled. This usually
involves the fabrication of a deeply finned aluminum sump. The
cylinder are cut off of the original engine casting and replaced with
after-market air-cooled barrels. The head is cut off from the
original engine's barrels and modified to mate with the replacement
air-cooled barrels. The head is modified so as to allow liquid
cooling and suitable arrangements are made for driving a water pump.
This assume that the person doing the conversion has access to a fully
equipped welding and machine shop. If that assumption is not valid,
or if the cost of the conversion is too high, then you will have to
fall back on the use of an un-converted engine, perhaps adjusting your
wing area to bring the stalling speed into an acceptable range.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Modifying an airframe so as to increase it's wing area is NOT a
trivial chore. But it is doable. Be sure to keep in mind that the
existing wing and tail is a SET. If the wing area is increased then
the moment between the wing's center of lift and the horizontal
stabilizers center of lift must be increased proportionally. In the
same vein, the Volume of the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical
stabilizer must retain the same RATIO with the new wing. As for
structural strength, you may use the dimensions of the existing spars
or struts, compared to the existing wing, and increase them according
to the RATIO of old vs new. This is NOT the correct way to do it but
since the standard practice is to provide for more than the required
strength in the original design, you will be reasonable correct so
long as you limit the load of any accelerated maneuvers to 3.3g or
less.

-R.S.Hoover

[bildan]

On May 19, 2:52*pm, Bob > wrote:
> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
> Volkswagen conversions. *While such conversions may be as large as
> 140cid (2332cc) when using a Type I crankcase -- and up to 170cid
> (2884cc) if you begin with the heavier Type IV -- *the SUSTAINABLE
> output of these engines is thermally limited by the design of their
> heads, which were designed for a 40hp engine. But the root problem is
> much worse than many imagine.
>
> In a recent thread in this Group it was pointed out that in some
> locales the aircooled Volkswagen engines have become rare and the
> price of a suitable conversion. *This makes any discussion of the most
> appropriate VW conversion moot since we are running out of VW's to
> convert.
>
> This lead to a general discussion regarding engines in general which
> evolved into several specific messages discussing the conversion of
> other, water-cooled engines.
>
> Using history as my guide it appears that the ideal engine for home-
> builders has already come and gone. *It was the Pobjoy radial, first
> built in 1926 and abandoned at the close of World War II. *The rights
> to the 7-cylinder, 130 lb, 75hp engine is presently held by the same
> people who manufacture the Rotax, who have no plans for its re-
> introduction, although its STC remains valid. *This geared (double-
> herringbone) radial was rated at 75hp @ 3000 rpm, 85hp @ 3300, with a
> TBO between 1500 and 2000 hours. *The exceptional TBO was largely due
> to the incorporation of a centrifugal oil filter, a feature not seen
> on other engines until the mid-1950's. *With equal-length intake
> runners and a heated intake manifold, the engine was remarkably
> efficient, having a specific fuel consumption which rivaled that of
> many large radials of the future (SFC 0.485 to 0.504). *It managed to
> do all that whilst burning 70 octane fuel using a CR of 6.5:1. This
> outstanding thermal efficiency was largely due to the elimination of
> ALL plain bearings, which are ball, needle or roller through-out.
>
> Despite its sophistication his engine has a number of features that
> make it a near perfect match for most of today's homebuilts.
> Paramount among them is the high percentage of identical parts, such
> as the cylinders, intake manifold(s) and valve train which make the
> engine an excellent candidate for 'kitting.' *It's weight of only 130
> pounds is partly reflected by its small size. *The cylinders are 75mm
> bore (same as the early VW) by 87mm stroke, a classic high-torque
> 'under-square' design. *Fully mantled and installed, the engine is
> less than 24" in diameter. *The 75mm pistons are fitted to flanged,
> cast-iron barrels which are threaded to the dual-plug, cast aluminum
> heads in what was to become an industry-wide technique.
>
> At the time of its inception its designer understood that it could not
> compete for price with the mono-bloc 4-cyl in-line engines being
> produced by de Havilland but felt there was still a market for an
> engine that got its power and fuel economy from a design having
> inherently greater efficiency. *This proved correct and for the next
> twenty years Pobjoy engines went on to power an impressive number of
> winning racers as well as setting many long-distance records (ie,
> England to Australia; London to Cape Town, etc.)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As for least-cost, as mentioned above, the key factors were recognized
> shortly after World War I, when the useful life of an engine was
> measured in tens of hours. *This lead to a family of strudy in-line
> engine that remain in production today, an by doing so offer the
> amateur builder of airplanes a well marked path to follow.
>
> The least expensive engine will always be the one which is
> manufactured in the largest numbers. *In countries having few
> petroleum resources -- where the price of fuel will always be a
> determining factor -- the engine most commonly available will tend to
> be quite small, typically 1300cc or less. *In order to gain sufficient
> torque to power a vehicle, these small engines will usually be fitted
> with a cam that puts the power-curve at or above 3000rpm. *These
> engines are of little use for driving the propeller directly since the
> propeller needs an rpm of 1500 to 2500 for best efficiency under
> Standard Day conditions. *It is possible to re-grind the cam so as to
> move the torque-peak into the range most suitable for propellers but
> the odds are, with a displacement of 1300cc or less, the amount of
> thrust from a directly-driven propeller will not be enough to fly the
> typical amateur-built design.
>
> If a suitable Propeller Speed Reduction Unit (PSRU) is available, it
> will have a radical effect on the equation. *But it will also have a
> remarkable effect on the WEIGHT, in that a PSRU of suitable
> durability.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In much of the world the most practical engine for conversion will be
> an in-line, liquid-cooled 4-cylinder engine having a displacement
> between 1500 and 2000 cc. *The propeller will be mounted directly to
> the clutch-end of the crankshaft using an aluminum spool to extend the
> propeller beyond the engine's transmission flange. *Ideally, the
> manufacturer of the engine will offer a range of cams. *By rpm by
> application is typically Marine Engine = highest rpm/torque curve,
> Automobile Engine = high rpm/torque curve, Truck Engine = medium rpm/
> torque curve, and Industrial Engine = lowest rpm/torque curve.
>
> With the exception of the cam, which should be swapped to give maximum
> torque at the lowest rpm, such an engine may be used WITHOUT further
> conversion. *However, it's high weight will limit its use to Single-
> Place designs having a wing area typically of 120 square feet or more.
> While the engine may be installed in aircraft having less wing area,
> wing-loading will result in a stall and landing speed that may be
> unacceptably high.
>
> The most successful of several weight reduction efforts will be to
> convert the engine to Composite Cooling, in which the heads are liquid-
> cooled, the cylinder barrels and sump are air-cooled. *This usually
> involves the fabrication of a deeply finned aluminum sump. *The
> cylinder are cut off of the original engine casting and replaced with
> after-market air-cooled barrels. *The head is cut off from the
> original engine's barrels and modified to mate *with the replacement
> air-cooled barrels. *The head is modified so as to allow liquid
> cooling and suitable arrangements are made for driving a water pump.
> This assume that the person doing the conversion has access to a fully
> equipped welding and machine shop. *If that assumption is not valid,
> or if the cost of the conversion is too high, then you will have to
> fall back on the use of an un-converted engine, perhaps adjusting your
> wing area to bring the stalling speed into an acceptable range.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Modifying an airframe so as to increase it's wing area is NOT a
> trivial chore. *But it is doable. *Be sure to keep in mind that the
> existing wing and tail is a SET. *If the wing area is increased then
> the moment between the wing's center of lift and the horizontal
> stabilizers center of lift must be increased proportionally. *In the
> same vein, the Volume of the horizontal stabilizer and the vertical
> stabilizer must retain the same RATIO with the new wing. *As for
> structural strength, you may use the dimensions of the existing spars
> or struts, compared to the existing wing, and increase them according
> to the RATIO of old vs new. *This is NOT the correct way to do it but
> since the standard practice is to provide for more than the required
> strength in the original design, you will be reasonable correct so
> long as you limit the load of any accelerated maneuvers to 3.3g or
> less.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

bildan wrote:
> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>> Volkswagen conversions.
>
> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
Bob talks about for a single Rotec....

Ron Wanttaja

[vaughn]

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...

>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>
> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
> Bob talks about for a single Rotec....

Do you think that a new-build Pobjoy radial would cost any less?

Vaughn

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Ron Wanttaja wrote:
> bildan wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>
>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>
> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
> Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>
> Ron Wanttaja


Yeah, maybe so.

But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..

[Stuart Fields]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
...
> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> bildan wrote:
>>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>>
>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>>
>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
>> Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>>
>> Ron Wanttaja
>
>
> Yeah, maybe so.
>
> But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..

Be Careful there. The Rotorway helicopter uses a liquid cooled engine that
came originally from VW stock and "Claims" nearly 150hp.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4091 (20090520) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Stuart Fields wrote:
> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>> bildan wrote:
>>>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
>>> Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>>>
>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>
>> Yeah, maybe so.
>>
>> But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..
>
> Be Careful there. The Rotorway helicopter uses a liquid cooled engine that
> came originally from VW stock and "Claims" nearly 150hp.
>
>
>

I seriously doubt that Rotorway claims they are powered by a VW engine.

[Bob]

On May 20, 8:11*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:

> * *Do you think that a new-build Pobjoy radial would cost any less?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. In fact, I think I said it's day had already come and gone. I
described it for those who were not familiar with it. I tend to not
re-read what I've posted (which can be dangrous at tmes) but I had the
impression that the Pobjoy was a good candidate for kitting.

But the main purpose for creating this topic was sparked by Stealth
Pilot's proposal about a universally available 40 hp engine NOT based
on VW after-market components, which I'll address in a moment. The
stated problem was that VW engines were becoming too expensive... with
the implication he was speaking with regard to Australian home-
builders. Which means the same is probably true for home-builders in
South Africa, although they seem to have a higher percentage of Type
IV engines.

What's probably needed here is a more direct link to the Brazilian VW
after-market manufacturers, especially with regard to the crankcase
and heads. Being cast iron, I assume the Australians could either
make their own jugs, or establish links to the Chinese manufacturers,
which they would need to do in any case in order to obtain VW after-
market stroker crankshafts.

As for the 'links,' I am referring to import/export agents on both
ends of the system. These 'native' agents earn their piece of the pie
by identifying manufacturers in their own countries who are producing
a product for which there is a market in a foreign country. In most
cases, all it takes is an inquiry on letter-head stationary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Getting back to the real purpose of this topic -- the universally
available 40hp engine -- We have the Continental A-40 to use as a
starting point... but one I hope will be used only for that. Despite
claims to the contrary, the A-40 was NOT a very good engine, although
it's last models were better than the first versions by an order of
magnitude. Even so, there were significant aspects begging for
improvement, such as the valve train and the L-head combustion
chamber. But even as it stands -- without any improvements -- it is an
STC'd aviation power-plant and a FACSIMILE should have no trouble with
local CAA officials.

What I'd hoped to engender was discussion regarding my comments about
how an existing water-cooled in-line 4-cylinder engine could be used
to produce an engine MORE SUITABLE for use in a home-built airplane.

Unspoken here was the assumption that home-builders of the future will
be coming from India and China. I base this assumption on the mail
I've received from those countries. I've taken that as meaning we are
going to see the need for Stealth's 40hp engine... but an EFFICIENT
40hp -- an engine that can be cobbled-up by a home-builder having an
income of less than 5k U.S.dollars per year. (Adjusted for local
prices [ie China & India] that level of income has approximately 3x
the buying power. But even 15k is a pretty small amount.)

The odds are overwhelmingly in favor for the existence of a suitable
base-engine (ie, 1.8 to 2.0l) already existing in those countries.
All we need to do is to show how such an engine can be turned into the
home-made equivalent of a de Havilland. (Easy, eh? :-)

-R.S.Hoover

-PS -- I'm doing the mail as I work my way thourgh my 'morning pills,'
some of which make me silly, others of which make me want to barf...
unless taken in the proper sequence. You can almost tell where I'm at
in the 'pilling' sequence by just reading what I've written :-)

[Stuart Fields]

"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
> Stuart Fields wrote:
>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>>> bildan wrote:
>>>>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>>>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>>>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>>>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs
>>>> like Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>>>>
>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>
>>> Yeah, maybe so.
>>>
>>> But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..
>>
>> Be Careful there. The Rotorway helicopter uses a liquid cooled engine
>> that came originally from VW stock and "Claims" nearly 150hp.
>
> I seriously doubt that Rotorway claims they are powered by a VW engine.

You are absolutely correct. However the Rotorway engine was based
originally on a liquid cooled VW. It has been greatly modified since. Point
being you can modify a VW and get enough power to fly a Fly Baby. When is
a rose not a rose? I know that I had to remove the Lycoming tag from my
0320 because of modifications but it is easy to see with the words Lycoming
on the valve covers that it isn't an Evinrude. However it is 90% Lycoming
so what do I call it?



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4091 (20090520) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Stuart Fields wrote:
> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
> m...
>> Stuart Fields wrote:
>>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>>>> bildan wrote:
>>>>>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>>>>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>>>>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>>>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>>>>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs
>>>>> like Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>> Yeah, maybe so.
>>>>
>>>> But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..
>>> Be Careful there. The Rotorway helicopter uses a liquid cooled engine
>>> that came originally from VW stock and "Claims" nearly 150hp.
>> I seriously doubt that Rotorway claims they are powered by a VW engine.
>
> You are absolutely correct. However the Rotorway engine was based
> originally on a liquid cooled VW. It has been greatly modified since. Point
> being you can modify a VW and get enough power to fly a Fly Baby. When is
> a rose not a rose? I know that I had to remove the Lycoming tag from my
> 0320 because of modifications but it is easy to see with the words Lycoming
> on the valve covers that it isn't an Evinrude. However it is 90% Lycoming
> so what do I call it?
>
>
>

A Stuart 0320?

[Charlie[_2_]]

Bob wrote:
> On May 20, 8:11 am, "vaughn" >
> wrote:
> [i]
>> Do you think that a new-build Pobjoy radial would cost any less?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No. In fact, I think I said it's day had already come and gone. I
> described it for those who were not familiar with it. I tend to not
> re-read what I've posted (which can be dangrous at tmes) but I had the
> impression that the Pobjoy was a good candidate for kitting.
>
> But the main purpose for creating this topic was sparked by Stealth
> Pilot's proposal about a universally available 40 hp engine NOT based
> on VW after-market components, which I'll address in a moment. The
> stated problem was that VW engines were becoming too expensive... with
> the implication he was speaking with regard to Australian home-
> builders. Which means the same is probably true for home-builders in
> South Africa, although they seem to have a higher percentage of Type
> IV engines.
>
> What's probably needed here is a more direct link to the Brazilian VW
> after-market manufacturers, especially with regard to the crankcase
> and heads. Being cast iron, I assume the Australians could either
> make their own jugs, or establish links to the Chinese manufacturers,
> which they would need to do in any case in order to obtain VW after-
> market stroker crankshafts.
>
> As for the 'links,' I am referring to import/export agents on both
> ends of the system. These 'native' agents earn their piece of the pie
> by identifying manufacturers in their own countries who are producing
> a product for which there is a market in a foreign country. In most
> cases, all it takes is an inquiry on letter-head stationary.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Getting back to the real purpose of this topic -- the universally
> available 40hp engine -- We have the Continental A-40 to use as a
> starting point... but one I hope will be used only for that. Despite
> claims to the contrary, the A-40 was NOT a very good engine, although
> it's last models were better than the first versions by an order of
> magnitude. Even so, there were significant aspects begging for
> improvement, such as the valve train and the L-head combustion
> chamber. But even as it stands -- without any improvements -- it is an
> STC'd aviation power-plant and a FACSIMILE should have no trouble with
> local CAA officials.
>
> What I'd hoped to engender was discussion regarding my comments about
> how an existing water-cooled in-line 4-cylinder engine could be used
> to produce an engine MORE SUITABLE for use in a home-built airplane.
>
> Unspoken here was the assumption that home-builders of the future will
> be coming from India and China. I base this assumption on the mail
> I've received from those countries. I've taken that as meaning we are
> going to see the need for Stealth's 40hp engine... but an EFFICIENT
> 40hp -- an engine that can be cobbled-up by a home-builder having an
> income of less than 5k U.S.dollars per year. (Adjusted for local
> prices that level of income has approximately 3x
> the buying power. But even 15k is a pretty small amount.)
>
> The odds are overwhelmingly in favor for the existence of a suitable
> base-engine (ie, 1.8 to 2.0l) already existing in those countries.
> All we need to do is to show how such an engine can be turned into the
> home-made equivalent of a de Havilland. (Easy, eh? :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
> -PS -- I'm doing the mail as I work my way thourgh my 'morning pills,'
> some of which make me silly, others of which make me want to barf...
> unless taken in the proper sequence. You can almost tell where I'm at
> in the 'pilling' sequence by just reading what I've written :-)
>
If 40 hp will do it, the new 'industrial' engines are looking really
good at this point. I follow an email list that focuses on small 4stroke
engines for a/c, & most of the discussion lately has been about these
engines. One guy is converting a vertical shaft lawn tractor motor (~32 hp).

These engines aren't at the 40 hp level yet, but it's easy to see bigger
ones coming out in the future. The nice thing about an industrial engine
is the output shaft & bearing is usually designed to take the horrendous
side loads of a reduction drive, so an a/c reduction or prop bending
load shouldn't be too much of a problem, and they are designed for
continuous output, not intermittent or varying load like most engines.

The guys at Valley Engineering seem to have found a very simple way to
make a reduction drive for these engines, and they even have one running
direct drive.

Large quantities, relatively low cost even for a new one, and great
deals as more & more show up on the used market. I like it.

Charlie

[vaughn]

>"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
>> Stuart Fields wrote:
>> so what do I call it?
>
> A Stuart 0320?

LycoFields 0320?

[Peter Dohm]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> On May 20, 8:11 am, "vaughn" >
> wrote:
>
>> Do you think that a new-build Pobjoy radial would cost any less?
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
>
> No. In fact, I think I said it's day had already come and gone. I
> described it for those who were not familiar with it. I tend to not
> re-read what I've posted (which can be dangrous at tmes) but I had the
> impression that the Pobjoy was a good candidate for kitting.
>
----------much snipped---------
> What I'd hoped to engender was discussion regarding my comments about
> how an existing water-cooled in-line 4-cylinder engine could be used
> to produce an engine MORE SUITABLE for use in a home-built airplane.
>
> Unspoken here was the assumption that home-builders of the future will
> be coming from India and China. I base this assumption on the mail
> I've received from those countries. I've taken that as meaning we are
> going to see the need for Stealth's 40hp engine... but an EFFICIENT
> 40hp -- an engine that can be cobbled-up by a home-builder having an
> income of less than 5k U.S.dollars per year. (Adjusted for local
> prices [ie China & India] that level of income has approximately 3x
> the buying power. But even 15k is a pretty small amount.)
>
> The odds are overwhelmingly in favor for the existence of a suitable
> base-engine (ie, 1.8 to 2.0l) already existing in those countries.
> All we need to do is to show how such an engine can be turned into the
> home-made equivalent of a de Havilland. (Easy, eh? :-)
>
> -R.S.Hoover

Bob,

Lots of great info as usual, and there are some additional excellent
possibilities that were imported here in the states untill very
recently--although I can not find any linkage to current useage and
availability as new engines.

One example is the Suzuki 4 cylinder 1300cc, and its 3 cylinder 1000cc
variant, used in the Suzuki Swift and Geo Metro. The 1300cc engine was
rated at 79 HP at just over 5000 rpm, and would clearly produce 40 HP at
propeller speed--or somewhat more on a sleek design that could make use of a
smaller and faster turning propeller. There have also been a number of
articles written regarding the conversion, expecially of the 3 cylinder
version, using belt reduction systems--including some using multiple
v-belts. There has been coverage at various times in Kit Planes and also in
EAA's old Experimenter magazine.

A second, and very similar, engine was a 4 cylinder 1300cc engine made by
Kia which was used in the Ford Aspire and rated at 70 HP at just over 5000
RPM. The Kia engine would be expected to produce similar torque at mid
range speeds, when compared to the Suzuki engine.

Both Suzuki and Kia, as well as Toyota and Honda, still produce similar
1600cc engines which are currently sold in compact cars here in the US.
Most are now rated at 6000 RPM or higher, although the Kia engine was
formerly rated at 90 HP and around 5000 RPM in the older Kia Rio cars.
Also, the Leon brothers used a pair of the Suzuki engines in their Coxy IV
with the coaxially driven propellers and operated (or probably still do)
their engines at 6000 RPM or a little more--using a pair of multiple v-belt
reduction units.

I have not kept up on the matter and don't have any information on how any
of theres engines may have fared in extended service; but I expect that many
or them have done quite well.

Peter

[Dan[_12_]]

vaughn wrote:
>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>> Stuart Fields wrote:
>>> so what do I call it?
>> A Stuart 0320?
>
> LycoFields 0320?
>
>

90% O320 = O288?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Ron Wanttaja[_2_]]

vaughn wrote:
> "Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs like
>> Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>
> Do you think that a new-build Pobjoy radial would cost any less?

Bob was talking VWs, and you suggested Rotecs as an alternative. I
never made one peep about Pobjoys.

Ron Wanttaja

[cavelamb[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
>
> Thoughts?


Weight...

Power is nice, but it's always about weight.

[Brian Whatcott]

cavelamb wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>
> Weight...
>
> Power is nice, but it's always about weight.

....every four stroke has a 2:1 reduction drive built in.
One that's subject to really lumpy loads.
It's called the cam shaft drive. Beefing up this chain
or gear drive would be one way.....

Brian W

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 11:23:33 -0700 (PDT), Bob >
wrote:


>
>Unspoken here was the assumption that home-builders of the future will
>be coming from India and China. I base this assumption on the mail
>I've received from those countries. I've taken that as meaning we are
>going to see the need for Stealth's 40hp engine... but an EFFICIENT
>40hp -- an engine that can be cobbled-up by a home-builder having an
>income of less than 5k U.S.dollars per year. (Adjusted for local
>prices [ie China & India] that level of income has approximately 3x
>the buying power. But even 15k is a pretty small amount.)
>
>The odds are overwhelmingly in favor for the existence of a suitable
>base-engine (ie, 1.8 to 2.0l) already existing in those countries.
>All we need to do is to show how such an engine can be turned into the
>home-made equivalent of a de Havilland. (Easy, eh? :-)
>
>-R.S.Hoover
>

the most likely engine for india is a conversion of something out of
TATA. I dont think we would see many of those engines in the west
although if the $2,000 car was marketed here and it's engine was
suitable we could probably think of it as an engine supplied in a
metal box :-)

it is an interesting conundrum because as simple as it sounds no one
markets a lightweight 40hp aero engine suitable for a single seat
aircraft. not that I'm aware of. (rotax 2 strokes I'm not interested
in)

none of the manufacturers I've looked at will supply an engine not
wrapped in a car. the smart car engine seemed a promise but in the
local distributors no one would even talk to me. ( I must have left my
top hat home that day)

all successful aircraft designs start with a successful engine.

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 00:14:10 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:


>
>A stack of V-belts would probably be able to do for 40 HP, even with some
>loss for efficiency, but you would have to start with more than 40 HP to get
>close to 40 HP to the prop. That would be my last choice, since I think
>that they would probably tend to get hot and wear out fairly quickly. How
>many belts stacked up would it take? Six, perhaps?
>

I think you're a bit pessimistic there.
arent robinson helicopters and schweitzer helicopters driven by a
stack of belts to the transmission.
surely they are more than 40Hp?

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Wed, 20 May 2009 14:46:06 -0700, "Stuart Fields" >
wrote:

>
>"cavelamb" > wrote in message
m...
>> Stuart Fields wrote:
>>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>>>>> bildan wrote:
>>>>>> On May 19, 2:52 pm, Bob > wrote:
>>>>>>> As of 2009 Amateur aircraft builders are largely limited to various
>>>>>>> Volkswagen conversions.
>>>>>> How about: http://www.rotecradialengines.com/
>>>>> Ever price one of those? You could probably build a half-dozen VWs
>>>>> like Bob talks about for a single Rotec....
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Wanttaja
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, maybe so.
>>>>
>>>> But no VW will ever fly a Flybaby..
>>>
>>> Be Careful there. The Rotorway helicopter uses a liquid cooled engine
>>> that came originally from VW stock and "Claims" nearly 150hp.
>>
>> I seriously doubt that Rotorway claims they are powered by a VW engine.
>
>You are absolutely correct. However the Rotorway engine was based
>originally on a liquid cooled VW. It has been greatly modified since. Point
>being you can modify a VW and get enough power to fly a Fly Baby. When is
>a rose not a rose? I know that I had to remove the Lycoming tag from my
>0320 because of modifications but it is easy to see with the words Lycoming
>on the valve covers that it isn't an Evinrude. However it is 90% Lycoming
>so what do I call it?
>

"that's the bit called the engine. you can tell it isnt a wheel
because they're rounder." %-)

[Stuart Fields]

"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> vaughn wrote:
>>> "cavelamb" > wrote in message
>>> m...
>>>> Stuart Fields wrote:
>>>> so what do I call it?
>>> A Stuart 0320?
>>
>> LycoFields 0320?
>
> 90% O320 = O288?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
To Cavelamb, Dan and Vaughn, thanks you've given me a good idea. Every year
the county asks me to fill out a form with information about my aircraft so
they can assess a 1% Personal property tax, they always ask what the engine
is. I now have some new ideas how to answer that question more accurately.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4094 (20090521) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[[email protected]]

Great to hear of your improving health Bob. You helped me in the past
and I follow your blog regularly. Thanks for your help and incredible
advice.

Here's an idea I've been working on. Take 2 v-twin industrial engines
in the 20-25 hp range. Place 1 facing forward and 1 facing the rear.
Attach the props at the end of simple long belt (or motorcycle
chain?) psru's and short booms with the engines buried in the fuselage
and cooled by thier original system. The sailplane world and ppg
people have these systems now.

Counter rotating props, stock industrial engines, engines low for
crash protection on pusher UL configurations.

For direct drive applications the old Kolb UL method of 2 little
engines on short beams holds great promise.

One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?

[[email protected]]

One more quick thought about construction of cheap UL's in the asian
countries why not bamboo for structural material. If anyone has ever
been to the east and seen the incredible scaffolding surrounding high
rise buildings soon realizes that there is a lot of knowledge locally
on inspecting, choosing, and building structures out of bamboo. The
stuff is incredibly strong and light. It grows like a weed everywhere
and can be harvested easily. If I lived there I'd use it.

Of course I live in North America and plan on fir from a local lumber
yard, cheap luan marine plywood from a local canoe shop and mild steel
tubing with stainless cap screw fastners from reputable North American
suppliers. When I mention these plans I might as well be building
with bamboo and twine (check out Mr. Montforts ultralite boats) when
at a gathering of experimental airplane builders!

[Bob]

Wow!

Now that's what I was hoping to see.

Okay, maybe a PSRU using belts. But not vee-belts. There is two
examples of v-belt drives we can use to draw data from, the one on
the Headwind, another on the PL-4. Both call for some wizard
machining and both need matched sets of belts, in that v-belts stretch
and you end up with slippage. This was covered... 'way back when
sometime (and I've probably got the details wrong).

The folks at Valley Engineering (sp?) have shown us how to do it with
a cog-tooth belt... which may also apply to some sort of serpentine
arrangement.

Would a timing belt work? I usta have a Pontiac that had a belt-
driven cam...

I'm thinking more of the machining here rather than the belt, on the
assumption that a cog-tooth belt WILL work... the main question being
how LONG it will do so. Which brings to mind the mention of a rear
axel something. Turns out, the bearing used for a rear axle is NOT
suitable for any kind of prop-drive. Slow prop turns more than 1200
rpm whereas a fast rear wheel is something less than that. Kinda like
the belt problem... you have to keep changing the thing BEFORE it can
fail, which it will in fairly short order. Cost is probably another
factor that needs to be considered here, in that a bearing that WILL
hold up at prop-speeds is probably priced a lot higher than your basic
rear wheel bearing.

Then there's the problem of starting the thing. Direct-drive we can
tweak the timing so it will start at a flip of the prop. But put a
PSRU in there we've got to 'wind it up' to get it to the proper firing
point.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I wish I had a shop full of TATA engines to play with. There may be a
combination of cam & rod-length that can give a reliable 40hp at an
rpm most suitable for a prop.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of props, has anyone ever heard of one made from bamboo?

----------------------------------------------------------------

I've got to go. Zometa. IV. About a quart. Takes a while (drip-
drip-drip...) Then I gotta look at a faucet that is doing the same
thing (drip-drip-drip...)

-Bob

[Stuart Fields]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stealth Pilot" > wrote
>
>> I think you're a bit pessimistic there.
>> arent robinson helicopters and schweitzer helicopters driven by a
>> stack of belts to the transmission.
>> surely they are more than 40Hp?
>
> Don't know. Anyone?
>
> How about some power transmission charts for v-belts from the
> manufacturers. That might be of some help.
> --
> Jim in NC

Yes both the Robinson, Scweitzer and Helicycle helos have a stack of belts
in their drive train.

Stu. Experimental Helo magazine.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4095 (20090521) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Charlie[_2_]]

Bob wrote:
> Wow!
>
> Now that's what I was hoping to see.
>
> Okay, maybe a PSRU using belts. But not vee-belts. There is two
> examples of v-belt drives we can use to draw data from, the one on
> the Headwind, another on the PL-4. Both call for some wizard
> machining and both need matched sets of belts, in that v-belts stretch
> and you end up with slippage. This was covered... 'way back when
> sometime (and I've probably got the details wrong).
>
> The folks at Valley Engineering (sp?) have shown us how to do it with
> a cog-tooth belt... which may also apply to some sort of serpentine
> arrangement.
>
> Would a timing belt work? I usta have a Pontiac that had a belt-
> driven cam...
>

>snip
According to the Valley web site, they are using a 'poly-V belt'. If you
look closely at the pics, you can see that the pulleys are multi-rib,
not cog.
http://www.valleyengineeringllc.com/big-twin.php

Charlie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Charlie" > wrote

> If 40 hp will do it, the new 'industrial' engines are looking really good
> at this point. I follow an email list that focuses on small 4stroke
> engines for a/c, & most of the discussion lately has been about these
> engines. One guy is converting a vertical shaft lawn tractor motor (~32
> hp).
>
> These engines aren't at the 40 hp level yet, but it's easy to see bigger
> ones coming out in the future. The nice thing about an industrial engine
> is the output shaft & bearing is usually designed to take the horrendous
> side loads of a reduction drive, so an a/c reduction or prop bending load
> shouldn't be too much of a problem, and they are designed for continuous
> output, not intermittent or varying load like most engines.

The biggest drawback these engines seem to have is weight. The current
offerings in a two cylinder and about 25 to 30 HP go about 100 pounds,
right?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stealth Pilot" > wrote

> I think you're a bit pessimistic there.
> arent robinson helicopters and schweitzer helicopters driven by a
> stack of belts to the transmission.
> surely they are more than 40Hp?

Don't know. Anyone?

How about some power transmission charts for v-belts from the manufacturers.
That might be of some help.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Wow!
>
> Now that's what I was hoping to see.
>
> Okay, maybe a PSRU using belts. But not vee-belts. There is two
> examples of v-belt drives we can use to draw data from, the one on
> the Headwind, another on the PL-4. Both call for some wizard
> machining and both need matched sets of belts, in that v-belts stretch
> and you end up with slippage. This was covered... 'way back when
> sometime (and I've probably got the details wrong).

I have a Gibson tractor that has 4 belts running the transmission. It is
not as much load as the 40 HP will put on the belts, but with enough belts,
the load would be close enough to work I think. I found that if 4 belts
were purchased from the same lot, it was well enough matched. The tight
belts would soon stretch to shed their load to the looser belts.

> The folks at Valley Engineering (sp?) have shown us how to do it with
> a cog-tooth belt... which may also apply to some sort of serpentine
> arrangement.

The toothed belt has been done at high HP levels (over 200HP) and have been
shown to last well over 200 hours. My concern with a setup like this is the
expense and availability of the pulleys and belts, and the machining needed
to put the whole thing together. Not do-able, IMHO.

> Would a timing belt work? I usta have a Pontiac that had a belt-
> driven cam...

I think the belts on a timing belt are square profile, and the ones being
used in commercially available PSRU units are a rounded profile. I seem to
remember that the square profile belts wore badly, and got too hot to be
reliable.

> I'm thinking more of the machining here rather than the belt, on the
> assumption that a cog-tooth belt WILL work... the main question being
> how LONG it will do so. Which brings to mind the mention of a rear
> axel something. Turns out, the bearing used for a rear axle is NOT
> suitable for any kind of prop-drive. Slow prop turns more than 1200
> rpm whereas a fast rear wheel is something less than that. Kinda like
> the belt problem... you have to keep changing the thing BEFORE it can
> fail, which it will in fairly short order. Cost is probably another
> factor that needs to be considered here, in that a bearing that WILL
> hold up at prop-speeds is probably priced a lot higher than your basic
> rear wheel bearing.

How about the wheel bearings used on those itty bitty trailer tires? They
turn a lot more RPM's. With a good oil supply (from the engine) they ought
to last for a couple hundred hours, then they are cheap enough to just
replace them.

> Then there's the problem of starting the thing. Direct-drive we can
> tweak the timing so it will start at a flip of the prop. But put a
> PSRU in there we've got to 'wind it up' to get it to the proper firing
> point.

Yep. Gotta have a starter.

> I wish I had a shop full of TATA engines to play with. There may be a
> combination of cam & rod-length that can give a reliable 40hp at an
> rpm most suitable for a prop.

TATA?

> Speaking of props, has anyone ever heard of one made from bamboo?

I can't imagine. Props need to be solid with no voids, and voids bamboo
gots plenty of! <g>

> I've got to go. Zometa. IV. About a quart. Takes a while (drip-
> drip-drip...) Then I gotta look at a faucet that is doing the same
> thing (drip-drip-drip...)

You make it sound so tempting. I almost want to go out and get some for me!
;-)
--
Jim in NC

[Bob]

On May 21, 4:28*am, Brian Whatcott > wrote:

> ...every four stroke has a 2:1 reduction drive built in.
> One that's subject to really lumpy loads.
> It's called the cam shaft drive. Beefing up this chain
> or gear drive would be one way.....
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Brian (and the Group)

I tried this approach some years ago. I used an after-market steel
cam gear for my starting point and came up with approximately 1200
hours as the service-life, indicating a re-build would be required at
the 600 hour mark.

I began by turning the engine over. Upside down, it would require a
pair of out-board oil pumps, one for scavaging the oil from the heads
& crankcase and feeding it to a new oil sump, the second pump drawing
oil from the sump and feeding it to the engine for lubrication,
filtering, cooling and so forth.

The reason for inverting the engine was to give me full access to the
existing oil pump's location. An outboard bearing and thrust assembly
was designed for this opening. The propeller shaft was a spllined
unit, 1.25" in diameter. That part of the project was relatively
straight-forward, using a double-row ball bearing for both thrust &
prop shaft support.

I don't recall the details as to why I gave up on the project but it
had to do with the interface between the cam shaft and the cam gear.
This project was done in the early 1980's.

-R.S.Hoover

[Bob]

On May 21, 9:21*am, wrote:

> One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Canuck (and the Group)

Do you mean like the one the Wright brothers used? :-)

The answer is a qualified yes. Experience with chain drives usually
causes people to seek some other method. The main problem is failures
due to lack of lubrication.

-R.S.Hoover

[Stuart Fields]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
On May 21, 9:21 am, wrote:

> One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Canuck (and the Group)

Do you mean like the one the Wright brothers used? :-)

The answer is a qualified yes. Experience with chain drives usually
causes people to seek some other method. The main problem is failures
due to lack of lubrication.

-R.S.Hoover

There are some other problems with chain drive. Rotorway helicopters used a
triple row chain drive for their "150"hp engine for some years with an oil
bath. Chain life wasn't that long and oil leaks from the bath would get on
the belts below effectively disconnecting the engine.



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4096 (20090522) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 10:53:40 -0700 (PDT), Bob >
wrote:


>
>I've got to go. Zometa. IV. About a quart. Takes a while (drip-
>drip-drip...) Then I gotta look at a faucet that is doing the same
>thing (drip-drip-drip...)
>
>-Bob

and then there's the prostate (drip-drip-drip...)

.....sorry :-)

Stealth Pilot

[Stealth Pilot[_2_]]

On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:58:16 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:


>
>> I wish I had a shop full of TATA engines to play with. There may be a
>> combination of cam & rod-length that can give a reliable 40hp at an
>> rpm most suitable for a prop.
>
>TATA?
>

Tata is a company in India probably every bit as big as General
Motors. primarily selling within India but we do see Tata trucks here
in australia on occasion.

[Brian Whatcott]

Bob wrote:
> On May 21, 9:21 am, wrote:
>
>> One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Canuck (and the Group)
>
> Do you mean like the one the Wright brothers used? :-)
>
> The answer is a qualified yes. Experience with chain drives usually
> causes people to seek some other method. The main problem is failures
> due to lack of lubrication.
>
> -R.S.Hoover

The Wrights had more than one shaft break. The chain drive is relatively
stiff. This is an advantage of the belt drive. It can quench those
ringing vibrations that wring shafts to failure.

Brian W

[[email protected]]

On May 21, 10:21*am, wrote:

> One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?

Hey Canuck,

Where-the-hell you been for the last 106 years? Take a look at a few
old photos and you'll see the answer to your question. Now before
everyone assumes that they know where I'm going with this response,
let me dispell a few myths:

1. it was NOT a bike chain. It was a #35 solid-link chain made by
Diamond. Two props means only 5.75hp per prop, so the #35 was the
correct size for our two brothers from Ohio (same size would work well
on a go-cart).

2. The two biker-brothers from OH were NOT the only ones to use a
chain PSRU successfully. Ben Epps did it in 1907. And some Italian did
it in the teens. Never did identify that plane, but it was a flying-
boat with a high-mounted chain-driven prop.

3> Tortional (sp??) vibration would be a serious issue if you don't
know about the working solution for it. That being a prop-shaft made
of spring-steel. Think tortion-bar suspension. Wil and Orv discovered
this the hard way by cracking two sets of tubular prop-shafts before
treking back home and making a suitable replacement. (Oh yea, don't
forget to squirt a little "Arnstein's tire cement" on the threads of
your shaft nuts or they'll come loose.)

Now would a modern motorcycle chain work? You bet. Would it be really
heavy? You bet. Could you find a suitable airframe that would handle
the weight, deal with the vibes, and last a reasonable amount of time?
Hmmmm. One thing is certain about chains though. They typically draw
1-3% of the engine's power. A belt is usually 5-15%. That's why you
don't see too many belt-driven bicycles out there.

If it were me, I'd be inclined to try two B&S Vanguards driving
outrigger-props via chains or serpentine belts on a test-bench just to
see what I could get. Probably a waste of time, but we are here to
experiment. Too bad all of the small I/C diesels are rediculiously
expensive and super-heavy.

Hey Euro-pilots, got any small diesels that might work with direct-
drive? No dice here in the States. Diesel here equals truck.

Harry

[Peter Dohm]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Charlie" > wrote
>
>> If 40 hp will do it, the new 'industrial' engines are looking really good
>> at this point. I follow an email list that focuses on small 4stroke
>> engines for a/c, & most of the discussion lately has been about these
>> engines. One guy is converting a vertical shaft lawn tractor motor (~32
>> hp).
>>
>> These engines aren't at the 40 hp level yet, but it's easy to see bigger
>> ones coming out in the future. The nice thing about an industrial engine
>> is the output shaft & bearing is usually designed to take the horrendous
>> side loads of a reduction drive, so an a/c reduction or prop bending load
>> shouldn't be too much of a problem, and they are designed for continuous
>> output, not intermittent or varying load like most engines.
>
> The biggest drawback these engines seem to have is weight. The current
> offerings in a two cylinder and about 25 to 30 HP go about 100 pounds,
> right?
> --
> Jim in NC
>
Or more, in the catalogs that I have seen. :-(

Peter

[Bob]

Dear Canuck,

Please accept my sincere apology for my unfair assumption (and for
Harry's too) that everyone in the whole wide world is balanced on the
razor's edge of Aviation History.

Harry has paid his dues, however. Perhaps he will point us toward
some pictures.

The Wright's 'Flyer' is surprisingly up to date for anyone interested
in low-cost flight. Not a very good example, however, but given the
era it's surprising how much we can learn from their efforts.

The lubrication problem is common to all chain drives: you need to
get the lubricant down around the bar which supports the roller,
rather than on the roller itself. At one time Chain Drive was
considered the cat's meow when it came to trucks, cars and other
vehicles. And still is! (Ever seen the equipment used in a modern
lumber mill? They've got a kind of straddle-lifter that will make a
believer out of you when it comes to chain-driven vehicles.

Modern chains impregnate the bar (which probably has a more
appropriate name) with 'solid lubricant,' which I take to mean
Tungsten Disulfide or similar. Also note the amount of work a chain
absorbs, as compared to a belt drive.

There is also rope drives (!!) which I suggest we reserve for
Emergencies Only.

Mention 'chain drive' and almost everyone knows what you're talking
about, even though real chain, such as used for pulling a truck out of
the mud, is also used, typically in chain hoists and the like. But
most folks accept 'chain drive' as meaning the roller-chain common to
bicycles, motor cycles, AIRPLANES and so forth.

Motor cycle engines AND their chain drive, was fitted to a number of
gliders and sailplanes in the 1930's. There's no reason to think
we've seen the last of such conversions in the Twenty-First Century,
although we'll probably see a v-twin industrial engine replacing the
motorcycle engine. Why? Because it's blower driven cooling system
allows it to be submerged within the fuselage. Someone has even
suggested a twin-engine version, one pushing the other pulling, which
is pretty smart thinking, in that with both engines on-line you would
have plenty of thrust for take-off. Shutting down one of the engines
-- and allowing the prop to self-feather -- would allow you to cruise
on the remaining engine. Indeed, such a system may offer a
significant advantage with regard to price when compared to a larger
engine and a PSRU.

-R.S.Hoover

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stuart Fields" > wrote

> Yes both the Robinson, Scweitzer and Helicycle helos have a stack of belts
> in their drive train.

Do you know how many belts and what HP they are transmitting?
--
Jim in NC

[Bob]

On May 22, 1:14*am, Stealth Pilot >
>
> and then there's the prostate (drip-drip-drip...)
>
> ....sorry :-)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Stealth,

Prior to its active ingredient being synthesized in the late 1960's
the only thing in the in the Pharmacopia specifically for 'urinary
tract health' was Serenoa repens, commonly known as Saw Palmetto.
Even more surprising is that the stuff actually works (!!)

It is available in the herbal section at most pharmacies and health
food stores.

If you have never taken it before, begin by taking two 450mg capsules
twice per day. That is, 1800mg total. If there is no evidence of
benefit, as might be the case with old herbal stock or with an over-
weight individual, you may increase the dosage up to 2700 mg per day
in 450 mg steps with at least five days at each new level.

When you have evidence the herb is working you should begin REDUCING
your dosage (It is available in dosages smaller than 450), seeking a
minimum level that provides the desired result.

As I said, the stuff actually works -- which is a surprise to many
physicians, who seem to think all drugs come from the pack of salesmen
who flood their offices with free lunches, free tickets to what-ever,
and ANYTHING ELSE that will cause the physician to prescribe their
product, a sad state of affairs that would be illegal were it not for
the POWERFUL drug company lobby that makes sure this form of bribery
remains legal.

But you want to make sure you are taking only the MINIMUM amount
required. So be warned.

-R.S.Hoover

[Morgans[_2_]]

> But you want to make sure you are taking only the MINIMUM amount
> required. So be warned.

I have to ask- what is the reason for only taking the minimum amount? What
kind of nasty things happen if you don't go the minimum way?
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 12:06*pm, Bob > wrote:
> Dear Canuck,
>
> Please accept my sincere apology for my unfair assumption (and for
> Harry's too) that everyone in the whole wide world is balanced on the
> razor's edge of Aviation History.

No harm here gentlemen, I'm too old and all us Canadian lads are a
tough bunch, skin like a rhino.

Actually guys I am aware of the Wright brothers but surely what they
did has no relevance here! I believe it was Quad city UL's or at
least someone who still supplies chains as a PRSU for rotax (i]'ll
track down a link). Also Kitplanes had a great article of a guy using
a Japanese crotch rocket bike motor with a chain drive off the
original sprocket to drive a prop quite a bit above the engine. He
ran 10000 rpm and shifted his tranny for different flight regimes.

I was caught up in the discussion about doing a plane extremely
cheap. Chain drives and sprockets, pillow blocks, cheap shafts, and
everything needed to build a prsu are available and salvagable from
dead machines. A discussion of the merits of the different pulley and
belts is nonsense for a guy in Siberia, Central China and the
Himalayan foothills. Motorcycles and chain driven small farm machines
are EVERYWHERE on this planet in the third world.

[[email protected]]

On May 22, 10:17*am, wrote:
> On May 21, 10:21*am, wrote:
>
> > One quick question, will a motorcycle chain system work for a prop?
>
> Hey Canuck,
>
> Where-the-hell you been for the last 106 years? Take a look at a few
> old photos and you'll see the answer to your question. Now before
> everyone assumes that they know where I'm going with this response,
> let me dispell a few myths:
>
> 1. it was NOT a bike chain. It was a #35 solid-link chain made by
> Diamond. Two props means only 5.75hp per prop, so the #35 was the
> correct size for our two brothers from Ohio (same size would work well
> on a go-cart).
>
> 2. The two biker-brothers from OH were NOT the only ones to use a
> chain PSRU successfully. Ben Epps did it in 1907. And some Italian did
> it in the teens. Never did identify that plane, but it was a flying-
> boat with a high-mounted chain-driven prop.
>
> 3> Tortional (sp??) vibration would be a serious issue if you don't
> know about the working solution for it. That being a prop-shaft made
> of spring-steel. Think tortion-bar suspension. Wil and Orv discovered
> this the hard way by cracking two sets of tubular prop-shafts before
> treking back home and making a suitable replacement. (Oh yea, don't
> forget to squirt a little "Arnstein's tire cement" on the threads of
> your shaft nuts or they'll come loose.)
>
> Now would a modern motorcycle chain work? You bet. Would it be really
> heavy? You bet. Could you find a suitable airframe that would handle
> the weight, deal with the vibes, and last a reasonable amount of time?
> Hmmmm. One thing is certain about chains though. They typically draw
> 1-3% of the engine's power. A belt is usually 5-15%. That's why you
> don't see too many belt-driven bicycles out there.
>
> If it were me, I'd be inclined to try two B&S Vanguards driving
> outrigger-props via chains or serpentine belts on a test-bench just to
> see what I could get. Probably a waste of time, but we are here to
> experiment. Too bad all of the small I/C diesels are rediculiously
> expensive and super-heavy.
>
> Hey Euro-pilots, got any small diesels that might work with direct-
> drive? No dice here in the States. Diesel here equals truck.
>
> Harry

Geschwender used the Morris Hy-Vo chain in his redrives, and they
worked well. That chain has teeth that engage sprockets that look like
gears instead of sprockets, and as the chain curves onto the sprocket
the teeth spread and get tight between the sprocket teeth so there's
no slop.
See http://www.alternate-airpower.com/
and http://www.fairmont-mn.com/altpower/psru.html

Dan

[jan olieslagers[_2_]]

Stealth Pilot schreef:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:58:16 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>> I wish I had a shop full of TATA engines to play with. There may be a
>>> combination of cam & rod-length that can give a reliable 40hp at an
>>> rpm most suitable for a prop.
>> TATA?
>>
>
> Tata is a company in India probably every bit as big as General
> Motors. primarily selling within India but we do see Tata trucks here
> in australia on occasion.

On a recent trip to France I saw Tata on several industrial buildings,
guess it was truck distributors but cannot be sure. BTW Tata are also in
the IT consulting business under the name TCS for Tata Consulting
Services - one of the biggest, and that in a very big market.

[Anthony W]

wrote:
> Geschwender used the Morris Hy-Vo chain in his redrives, and they
> worked well. That chain has teeth that engage sprockets that look like
> gears instead of sprockets, and as the chain curves onto the sprocket
> the teeth spread and get tight between the sprocket teeth so there's
> no slop.
> See http://www.alternate-airpower.com/
> and http://www.fairmont-mn.com/altpower/psru.html
>
> Dan

Ford used a set up like this in the transfer case on some 4 wheel drive
trucks so the parts could be available that way...

Tony

[Peter Dohm]

"Anthony W" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>> Geschwender used the Morris Hy-Vo chain in his redrives, and they
>> worked well. That chain has teeth that engage sprockets that look like
>> gears instead of sprockets, and as the chain curves onto the sprocket
>> the teeth spread and get tight between the sprocket teeth so there's
>> no slop.
>> See http://www.alternate-airpower.com/
>> and http://www.fairmont-mn.com/altpower/psru.html
>>
>> Dan
>
> Ford used a set up like this in the transfer case on some 4 wheel drive
> trucks so the parts could be available that way...
>
> Tony

I have heard that GM did as well, and possibly others.

However, I have not seem tham apart, not studied their manuals.

Peter

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anthony W" > wrote
>
> Ford used a set up like this in the transfer case on some 4 wheel drive
> trucks so the parts could be available that way...

The problem there is that both sprockets are the same size, so no prop
speed reduction, there.

I don't know about all of the Chevy front wheel drive cars, but I think they
use hy-vo chains on them. I know the Chevy Citation automatic transmission
used them. I had one fail, after it was side loaded in a collision.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:
> "Anthony W" > wrote
>> Ford used a set up like this in the transfer case on some 4 wheel drive
>> trucks so the parts could be available that way...
>
> The problem there is that both sprockets are the same size, so no prop
> speed reduction, there.
>
> I don't know about all of the Chevy front wheel drive cars, but I think they
> use hy-vo chains on them. I know the Chevy Citation automatic transmission
> used them. I had one fail, after it was side loaded in a collision.

I never had the Ford that I had apart so I can't say for sure but odds
are if someone really wanted to go that route, you could scrounge up
sprockets of various sizes.

I'd rather use a Harley belt primary drive. It's an off the shelf set
up that would require minimal machining to adapt to the purpose. Off
the top of my head, I'd say the reduction is better than 2 to 1 and
replacement belts can be purchased in any city in North America if you
didn't want to bother with mail order.

Tony

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anthony W" > wrote
>
> I'd rather use a Harley belt primary drive. It's an off the shelf set up
> that would require minimal machining to adapt to the purpose. Off the top
> of my head, I'd say the reduction is better than 2 to 1 and replacement
> belts can be purchased in any city in North America if you didn't want to
> bother with mail order.

I had thought the same thing before, also.

I've never priced that type of thing, before. Are prices reasonable?
Probably not, I'm thinking.
--
Jim in NC

[Anthony W]

Morgans wrote:
> "Anthony W" > wrote
>> I'd rather use a Harley belt primary drive. It's an off the shelf set up
>> that would require minimal machining to adapt to the purpose. Off the top
>> of my head, I'd say the reduction is better than 2 to 1 and replacement
>> belts can be purchased in any city in North America if you didn't want to
>> bother with mail order.
>
> I had thought the same thing before, also.
>
> I've never priced that type of thing, before. Are prices reasonable?
> Probably not, I'm thinking.

Define reasonable. No not cheap new but you can find complete belt
primary drives used on eBay when the hotrodders are swamping them out
for the 3.5 and 4" belts for the custom engines.

The 3.5 and 4" belt setups are running about $1500 and probably not
worth it for what we're talking about. These belts are for engines that
run over 100 BHP peak and the riders of these bikes can be very abusive
when doing burnouts and drag racing.

Tony

Tony

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Anthony W" > wrote

> The 3.5 and 4" belt setups are running about $1500 and probably not worth
> it for what we're talking about. These belts are for engines that run
> over 100 BHP peak and the riders of these bikes can be very abusive when
> doing burnouts and drag racing.

Humm, I saw some brand new 3" with 2 pulleys and belt for less than 500
bucks, but they were set up for installing the one pulley on a clutch, so an
adapter would probably have to be made for that one.

If they are available on Ebay for less, that would be what I would consider
reasonable. 500 bucks isn't too far out of reach for most non 3rd world
country resident, either.
--
Jim in NC

[Charlie[_2_]]

I'm running a bit behind on this thread; here are thoughts about a
couple of questions.

Someone mentioned that the industrial engines are a bit heavy. True to a
degree, but if you're designing a plane around the engine (as God
intended) the extra weight is only a minor penalty. Early VW powered
designs had to make do with not much more than 40 hp, & the VW weighed
over 150 lbs. Hundreds of 'Piets' are flying with 35-40 hp Model A
engines that weigh way more than 300 lbs, IIRC. The plane was designed
for the engine. Hanging one on a plane designed for a Rotax won't be too
successful, though. :-)

Someone else mentioned using a heavier cam drive train as the prop
reduction drive. It's been done on certified engines. The problem I've
heard about is that it increases the likelihood of torsional resonance
(supposedly the reason that reduction ratios are almost always some
weird number).

Charlie

[Veeduber[_2_]]

On May 25, 5:40*pm, Charlie > wrote:

>
> Someone mentioned that the industrial engines are a bit heavy. True to a
> degree, but if you're designing a plane around the engine (as God
> intended) the extra weight is only a minor penalty.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Charlie,

Seeking information about TATA's engine line-up, with special interest
toward the most popular and having the longest years of service, I was
told it was a 1403cc I-4 SOHC in both Otto Cycle & Diesel (!!),
offered as an industrial engine, for cars, trucks and even marine
applications.

I guess they do things differently in India because 1403cc is about
85cid -- even the stock 1600cc VW would look like a stump-puller. But
the weight is said to be 'about' 300 lbs (!!!) Which may explain the
ability to use the basic block for a Diesel as well as a SOHC gas
engine.

Any way you slice it, the weight is a tad much.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Early VW powered
> designs had to make do with not much more than 40 hp...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Late ones, too :-)

The VW is thermally limited by its heads, which were designed for the
40hp 1300cc engine. You can increase it's displacement.. . and you
may CLAIM any horsepower you wish.... but you maximum SUSTAINED
output is going to fall in the 40 to 50 hp range, depending on the
local atmosphere. Demand any more and your MTBO takes a major header
into the porcelain fixture. (Engines can't lie. Go by their fuel
consumption figures. The SFO (specific fuel consumption) of all air-
cooled engines is clustered around the 0.5lb/hp mark (Standard Day
assumed, etc.) )

-R.S.Hoover

[Charlie[_2_]]

Veeduber wrote:
> On May 25, 5:40 pm, Charlie > wrote:
>
>> Someone mentioned that the industrial engines are a bit heavy. True to a
>> degree, but if you're designing a plane around the engine (as God
>> intended) the extra weight is only a minor penalty.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Charlie,
>
> Seeking information about TATA's engine line-up, with special interest
> toward the most popular and having the longest years of service, I was
> told it was a 1403cc I-4 SOHC in both Otto Cycle & Diesel (!!),
> offered as an industrial engine, for cars, trucks and even marine
> applications.
>
> I guess they do things differently in India because 1403cc is about
> 85cid -- even the stock 1600cc VW would look like a stump-puller. But
> the weight is said to be 'about' 300 lbs (!!!) Which may explain the
> ability to use the basic block for a Diesel as well as a SOHC gas
> engine.
>
> Any way you slice it, the weight is a tad much.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Early VW powered
>> designs had to make do with not much more than 40 hp...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Late ones, too :-)
>
> The VW is thermally limited by its heads, which were designed for the
> 40hp 1300cc engine. You can increase it's displacement.. . and you
> may CLAIM any horsepower you wish.... but you maximum SUSTAINED
> output is going to fall in the 40 to 50 hp range, depending on the
> local atmosphere. Demand any more and your MTBO takes a major header
> into the porcelain fixture. (Engines can't lie. Go by their fuel
> consumption figures. The SFO (specific fuel consumption) of all air-
> cooled engines is clustered around the 0.5lb/hp mark (Standard Day
> assumed, etc.) )
>
> -R.S.Hoover
Hi Bob,

Sorry for the confusion; the industrial engines I was referring to are
the new ones typically used for generators, like the one Valley
Engineering uses.
http://www.culverprops.com/big-twin.php

120 lbs *including a reduction drive and a large diameter prop* for lots
of low speed thrust. I think the direct drive version is under 100 lbs
when stripped for aviation. Their web site is a bit tricky to navigate,
but there's a lot of info on how they did the mods if you dig for it.

The stock engine (unmodified for aviation) is available for around
$3,000, new in box.

Their 'Backyard Flyer' (a couple of different versions on the web site)
using this engine looks a lot like what I would have designed, if I had
the chops. They claim that it's UL-legal, using this 'heavy' engine.
http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-flyer.php
http://www.culverprops.com/back-yard-ul.php

Oh yeah, someone mentioned motorcycle chain drives. Several years ago
there was a 2 seat pusher UL-like plane based in south Mississippi
flying with (IIRC) a Honda CBR600 shaft drive engine. It was mounted low
in the airframe with a racing chain up to a high-mounted prop shaft in
pillow block bearings. The owner said that he flew in 2nd or 3rd (I
forget which) when solo & downshifted one gear when carrying a
passenger. Apparently it was reliable, because he flew it on cross
countries. I ran the idea past a friend who has raced bikes for most of
his life. He said that it'll work fine if most of the rpm reduction
happens before the chain, but 6K rpm (2 stroke rpms) into the chain
would cause serious issues with the chain trying to turn into a solid
rod entering & leaving the sprocket.

FWIW,

Charlie

[Peter Dohm]

"Veeduber" > wrote in message
...
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Early VW powered
>> designs had to make do with not much more than 40 hp...
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Late ones, too :-)
>
> The VW is thermally limited by its heads, which were designed for the
> 40hp 1300cc engine. You can increase it's displacement.. . and you
> may CLAIM any horsepower you wish.... but you maximum SUSTAINED
> output is going to fall in the 40 to 50 hp range, depending on the
> local atmosphere. Demand any more and your MTBO takes a major header
> into the porcelain fixture. (Engines can't lie. Go by their fuel
> consumption figures. The SFO (specific fuel consumption) of all air-
> cooled engines is clustered around the 0.5lb/hp mark (Standard Day
> assumed, etc.) )
>
> -R.S.Hoover
>
Most of the early VW powered designs, of which I was aware, were designed
and built to work well with a claimed 25 HP. As I recall it, for example,
the Jodel D9 had a wingspan of roughly 23 feet and was supposed to depart
over a 50 foot obstacle in little more than 450 feet and cruise at around 65
mph (about 57 kts) carrying a modest amount of fuel and a 160 pound pilot.
I admit to being about 10 percent heavier than that; but the basic concept
was valid.

Unfortunately, it weighed a little over 300 poinds and the speeds were just
a little above the subsequent Part 103 limits, so interest in that class of
aircraft has been low--even though the stated utility and fuel efficiency
remain better than any of the popular ultralights of which I am aware. My
recollection is that around 1.5 gph was claimed.

Clearly, a 50 HP engine should be able to power a 2 seated of similar
performance, with a gross weight around 1000 pounds. That's as fast as some
of the older "certified" aircraft like the early Cub and the "bathtub"
Aeronca--and it's nearly impossible to maintain 100 percent power for more
than a minute or so with a fixed pitch propeller--so 40 to 50 sustained
horsepower is not necessarily a deterrant for that class of aircraft.

Peter

[flybynightkarmarepair]

This website does a bang-up job of running through the options of
various reduction types, and comes down firmly on the side of spur
gears with hydrodynamic bearings:
http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_reduction_technology/gearbox_technology_contents.htm

This Polish outfit produces spur gear reductions for various
relatively low power engines:
http://www.aerotech-poland.com/index.php?go=5

I wrote and asked how much:

Hi,
a typical price for gear rd is 1180 EUR + shipping cost.
This price is changing due to currency rates.
Regards
Wlodzimierz Krukowski

They seem to be engine oil lubricated.

[Peter Dohm]

"flybynightkarmarepair" > wrote in message
...
> This website does a bang-up job of running through the options of
> various reduction types, and comes down firmly on the side of spur
> gears with hydrodynamic bearings:
> http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_reduction_technology/gearbox_technology_contents.htm
>
> This Polish outfit produces spur gear reductions for various
> relatively low power engines:
> http://www.aerotech-poland.com/index.php?go=5
>
> I wrote and asked how much:
>
> Hi,
> a typical price for gear rd is 1180 EUR + shipping cost.
> This price is changing due to currency rates.
> Regards
> Wlodzimierz Krukowski
>
> They seem to be engine oil lubricated.
>
>
Spur geared engines are not generally well thought of by the mechanics with
whom I have talked.

Unless there is a clutch located between the engine crankshaft and the input
shaft of the PSRU, as would normally be the case in an automobile with a
manual transmission, the driving gear will always have the same orientation
with respect to the power pulses of a reciprocating engine. The resulting
uneven wear will ultimately define the replacement interval of the gear(s).

The use of gear ratios that randomize the tooth contact between the driving
and driven gear, or the choice of an engine with a greater number of
cylinders, will serve to mitigate the problem; but a planetary or epicyclic
PSRU will remain the preferred solution whenever there is no randomizing
feature between the crankshaft and the input gear.

Supposedly, cogged belts are imune to the problems; but I suspect it is
simply that the wear rate on the cogged pullies is simply low enough to make
the problem appear trivial. Personally, just to be on the safe side, I
would choose the ratios of both sprockets and the belt to randomize the
contact on a cogged belt drive as well and I would do the same with chain!

Peter

[Brian Whatcott]

flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
> This website does a bang-up job of running through the options of
> various reduction types, and comes down firmly on the side of spur
> gears with hydrodynamic bearings:
> http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_reduction_technology/gearbox_technology_contents.htm
>

I notice this site puts a deal of effort into slagging off a
competitor's sprag clutch use. Without regard to the merits, this is
a warning to me....


Brian W

[flybynightkarmarepair]

On May 28, 10:16*am, Brian Whatcott > wrote:
> flybynightkarmarepair wrote:
> > This website does a bang-up job of running through the options of
> > various reduction types, and comes down firmly on the side of spur
> > gears with hydrodynamic bearings:
> >http://www.epi-eng.com/propeller_reduction_technology/gearbox_technol...
>
> I notice this site puts a deal of effort into slagging off a
> competitor's sprag clutch use. * *Without regard to the merits, this is
> a warning to me....
>
> Brian W

I hear where your're coming from, and respect that point of view.

However, that competitor no longer exists. The successor company that
absorbed what was left designed a NEW PSRU from scratch - single
reduction, helical gears, but NOT planetary. No sprag clutch, and a
torsionally soft resilient element between the engine and the gears:
http://www.maxwellpropulsion.com/sportsman/psru.html

Other than the Helical/Spur gear issue, pretty much like EPI
engineering suggests.

OTOH, Real World Solutions has a Ford based planetary out there
racking up hours.

BOTH the RWS and Maxwell Propulsion units are too big and heavy for
the low horsepower applications Veeduber was initially talking about.
The Polish Aerotech unit is the only gear reduction I'm aware of
suitable for smaller engines.

[[email protected]]

Hello All:

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one, but someone
suggested reverse engineering a Pobjoy engine - if one could be found.
Read the last post in the following thread for a link to one that is
on display in a museum (at South County Airport in Northern CA):

http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20143

Dave

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article
>,
wrote:

> Hello All:
>
> I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one, but someone
> suggested reverse engineering a Pobjoy engine - if one could be found.
> Read the last post in the following thread for a link to one that is
> on display in a museum (at South County Airport in Northern CA):
>
> http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20143
>
> Dave

That would be the NorCal Antiquers Museum at South County. The engine
formerly was on display at Irv Perlich's Hill Country restaurant and
museum, until it was sold at auction.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> wrote:
>
> > Hello All:
> >
> > I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one, but someone
> > suggested reverse engineering a Pobjoy engine - if one could be found.
> > Read the last post in the following thread for a link to one that is
> > on display in a museum (at South County Airport in Northern CA):
> >
> > http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20143
> >
> > Dave
>
> That would be the NorCal Antiquers Museum at South County. The engine
> formerly was on display at Irv Perlich's Hill Country restaurant and
> museum, until it was sold at auction.

That's about 10 minutes from my house. Oughta go down and take a look at
it.

As for the Flying Lady restaurant, we used to bike over with our kids
and wander around in the big barn/hangar, looking at the various flying
machines and old cars. Too bad it all turned out the way it did.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Steve Hix > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hello All:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one, but someone
> > > suggested reverse engineering a Pobjoy engine - if one could be found.
> > > Read the last post in the following thread for a link to one that is
> > > on display in a museum (at South County Airport in Northern CA):
> > >
> > > http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20143
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> > That would be the NorCal Antiquers Museum at South County. The engine
> > formerly was on display at Irv Perlich's Hill Country restaurant and
> > museum, until it was sold at auction.
>
> That's about 10 minutes from my house. Oughta go down and take a look at
> it.
>
> As for the Flying Lady restaurant, we used to bike over with our kids
> and wander around in the big barn/hangar, looking at the various flying
> machines and old cars. Too bad it all turned out the way it did.

I think that Irv had a major hand in its demise. Too bad -- I loved the
atmosphere!

1. He insisted on being "hands on" with menu selection and food
preparation, even though hwasn't that good a chef.

2. The major cause was his thumbing his nose at the County building
inspectors. A balcony collapse had a fatality (and consequent lost
lawsuit).

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello All:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if it was this thread or another similar one, but someone
> > > > suggested reverse engineering a Pobjoy engine - if one could be found.
> > > > Read the last post in the following thread for a link to one that is
> > > > on display in a museum (at South County Airport in Northern CA):
> > > >
> > > > http://www.warbirdinformationexchange.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20143
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > >
> > > That would be the NorCal Antiquers Museum at South County. The engine
> > > formerly was on display at Irv Perlich's Hill Country restaurant and
> > > museum, until it was sold at auction.
> >
> > That's about 10 minutes from my house. Oughta go down and take a look at
> > it.
> >
> > As for the Flying Lady restaurant, we used to bike over with our kids
> > and wander around in the big barn/hangar, looking at the various flying
> > machines and old cars. Too bad it all turned out the way it did.

I hear, by the way, that the Ford Trimotor that used to reside in the
hangar ended up in southern california, and crashed at Fullerton airport
in 2004.

> I think that Irv had a major hand in its demise. Too bad -- I loved the
> atmosphere!
>
> 1. He insisted on being "hands on" with menu selection and food
> preparation, even though hwasn't that good a chef.
>
> 2. The major cause was his thumbing his nose at the County building
> inspectors. A balcony collapse had a fatality (and consequent lost
> lawsuit).

Beyond that, the spent years annoying the local city council, building
projects without permits and so on. He actually might have done pretty
well, for himself and the community, if he'd ever dialed himself back
from 12 or so. Most of his problems were self-inflicted.

Whenever he got into a bind, fewer people were willing to give him a
hand; the balcony collapse was the final icing on the cake.

Anyway, Hill Country and the Flying Lady property was bought by Fry's
Electronics CEO John Fry from Perlich in 1998, including the 18-hole
golf course.

Supposedly, the American Institute of Mathematics is going to build a
166,000-square-foot conference center modeled after the Alhambra in
Granada, Spain. They broke ground on the project in early 2007. Haven't
heard much at all about it since.

[Orval Fairbairn[_2_]]

In article >,
Steve Hix > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Steve Hix > wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> I hear, by the way, that the Ford Trimotor that used to reside in the
> hangar ended up in southern california, and crashed at Fullerton airport
> in 2004.

I thought that it went to Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight. Next time I
go there, I will check for it.

--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

[Steve Hix]

In article
>,
Orval Fairbairn > wrote:

> In article >,
> Steve Hix > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Orval Fairbairn > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Steve Hix > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> >
> > I hear, by the way, that the Ford Trimotor that used to reside in the
> > hangar ended up in southern california, and crashed at Fullerton airport
> > in 2004.
>
> I thought that it went to Kermit Weeks' Fantasy of Flight. Next time I
> go there, I will check for it.

The Trimotor that crashed at Fullerton was N750RW.

Digging around a little, the Trimotor sold by Perlitch to Weeks was
NC9651. http://aerofiles.com/ford-locator.html says it's in Florida
currently, and thought to be flyable.

So it looks like the article I found saying the Fullerton loss was the
old Morgan Hill Trimotor was probably wrong, unless aerofiles list uses
the original civil registration number whether or not a given aircraft
has been reregistered with new numbers.