A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

PSRU design advantages



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #18  
Old April 6th 06, 02:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.homebuilt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default PSRU design advantages


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.