![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Richard Lamb" wrote in message k.net... Peter Dohm wrote: "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 Rotax - the 912/914 Jabaru - (but the 6 cylinder will be a better seller - IMHO) Believe it or not, a few VW's with belts. And a couple of Subes with Rotax B boxes scabbed on. The one that DIDN'T work was the Geo Metro 3-banger (broke the crank). But that issue was already known - don't cut off any flywheel on 3 holers. With the full flywheel, the 3 cylinder runs fine. Richard OK, you caught me fair and square on poor phrasing. I tend to think of higher power applications, but you are right that some of the more conservative and lower powered systems with flywheels still in place and a little looser coupling seem to run quite reliably. I don't know how much power is lost to friction, but some of the v-belt reduction drives even seem to work quite reliably without any external crankshaft support! Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Looking for a two-seater design | Shin Gou | Home Built | 13 | December 21st 04 06:44 AM |
Aircraft Design 1942 flying boats FA | Sally | Home Built | 0 | August 19th 04 06:49 PM |
amateur design consultant? | Shin Gou | Home Built | 14 | June 30th 04 01:34 AM |
How 'bout a thread on the F-22 with no mud slinging, no axe grinding, no emotional diatribes, and just some clear, objective discussion? | Scott Ferrin | Military Aviation | 23 | January 8th 04 12:39 AM |