PSRU design advantages
			 
			 
			
		
		
		
		
 
"Peter Dohm"  wrote in message 
... 
 
 "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote in message 
 ... 
 The basics: 
 
 Piston engines produce more power per pound if they rev higher. (HP = RPM 
 x 
 torque/5252) 
 Propellers are MUCH more efficient if they turn slow. 
 This begs for a PSRU. 
 BUT, a PSRU adds weight, cost and complexity. 
 Resonances, particularly torsional resonances are a real problem. 
 Lots of examples of PSRU's on 12, 14 and 18 cyinder engines 
 Few workable examples with fewer cylinders suggesting PSRU's don't like 
 power pulses. 
 If a shaft has a strong resonant fundamental, don't excite it or lower 
 the 
 fundamental below the input frequency. 
 Tuning a PSRU/shaft/propeller system is like tuning a piano - it's an art 
 not a science. 
 
 The 9 cylinder 1820 and 1840 CID radials used on B-17's were geared 
 approximately 16:9.  However, your point is well taken, and I also am 
 unable 
 to name any 4 or 6 cylinder engines that have stood the test of time with 
 reduction drives. 
 
 I also believe that tuning any drive system, including a PSRU, is a 
 science--when fully understood.  And therein lies the rub:  There's plenty 
 left to learn--especially if it must also be light.  So, in practice, you 
 are right--it is still an art.   :-( 
 
 Peter 
 
You're right.  I forgot that there were some successful 9 cyl geared 
engines.  The radials used planetary gears in the nosecase.  I like 
planetaries since there's a lot of tooth engagement to carry the power yet 
they tend to be compact and light. 
 
I suppose...you could use a hydro drive.  Turn a pump with the engine and 
use a hydraulic motor to turn the prop.  Some type of pressure regulator 
could smooth the pressure to the prop motor.  Might work for a really slow 
turning prop. 
 
Bill D 
 
 
 
 
		
	
		
		
		
		
		
	
		 
			
 
			
			
			
				 
            
			
			
            
            
                
			
			
		 
		
	
	
	 |