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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
Peter Dohm wrote:
"Richard Lamb" wrote in message nk.net... Peter Dohm wrote: "Richard Lamb" wrote in message link.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 You didn't follow the link that blueskies posted, didja Peter. The BD-5 story - in all it's glory! And a few other odds and ends, That was not a high powered setup, but kicked a bunch of engineers around. http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/T.../contact1.html Richard Actually I did, some months ago following an earlier post, and subsequently also learned that the Contact! article is quite famous. One of the more interesting points was that trying to make the shaft and/or transfer drive more rigid was not helpful on the BD-5. Softening the system eventually did resolve the breakage problem within the drive train; but IIRC the drive system to airframe resonance (evidenced initially by loosened rivets) was not fully resolved during the author's tenure. That was the article that really convinced me that I didn't necessarily know enough to design a clutchless system with a high degree of confidence--even by leaving the flywheel in place. However, the set of books mentioned elsewhere in this thread, by Mr. Horton, could prove to contain the necessary formulas and explanations to reduce this problem to a cookbook science. A quick web search confirmed his belief that one of the books may now be virtually unobtainable. I am willing to entertain his book suggestion because, in my earlier career as an electronic technician, a technical tome entitled "Shielding and Grounding Techniques in Instrumentation" made previously insurmountable grounding problems easy to solve. It is probable that work on mechanical resonance, done for World War II, may have been covered in books published during the succeeding quarter century. Peter My pardon, sir! Richard |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
"Richard Lamb" wrote So it *can* be done. (The cannon firing thru the prop! ) I was curious to see if Bell had reduced the shaft RPM between the engine and gearbox, but it looks like 1:1 there. Yep. The normal speed reduction unit for the prop is taken off, and put at the end of the shaft. That might have been of interest to the OP, since his setup will likely drive the shaft at prop rpm (after the psru). Gonna take one tough (probably spelled h.e.a.v.y) shaft for that service... Are there any others? There are numerous dual rotar sling wings that have an interconnected rotor shaft, but they are usually turbine engines. One example is the Osprey. The normal Allison AC engine also had an active fluid torsional resonance reducer at the non driven end of the crankshaft on the engine, and a torsional reducer coupling (rubber) on the drive end. I could not find that info about the aircobra, but I'll bet they are there on that application, also. -- Jim in NC |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote Suppose the prop shaft is to be just long enough for the gear belt pulley and the neccessary bearings - say 10 inches. But the engine flywheel pulley is to be 4 - 6 feet below the prop shaft. The idea is to use a very large multi-blade carbon fiber prop turning 800 - 1000 RPM driven by a 4 cyl Soob turning at best power RPM. The idea is to get best thrust in the 0 - 60 knot range. The airframe configuration is a prop over tail boom pusher - an ultralight on steroids. (BTW, I'm not looking for a long engine life under these conditions. I'll treat the Soob as a throwaway power plant.) Strange, but I am considering a system, very much like that. Flying boat, with the engine in the fuselage, instead of on a pylon. I'm thinking there isn't too much torsional vibration concern with very short shafts, high reving engine and a stiff carbon fiber prop. The prop will be seeing 6 - 7 power pulses per rev from the high reving Soob. On that, I would agree. I believe you will have a new problem, though. I believe that you will have a problem with the belt vibrating, like a guitar string. At some speeds, it will get to the same resonance of the belt, and slap like the devil. I have a 20" band saw that does this every time, as it slows down, right before it stops. One way to deal with this is to make the string (belt) shorter, with some idler pullies. At least that is my plan. It would be a good idea to make the distances between the plies a little different, or it will have a strong tendency to vibrate as a complete string, at a higher fundamental (lowest) frequency. It is the same (in a way) as muffler design. The volume in the different chambers is a little different, so when the frequency is resonating in one chamber, it will not be resonating in the other chamber, thus more frequencies are muffled. -- Jim in NC |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
"Morgans" kirjoitti ... "Richard Lamb" wrote So it *can* be done. (The cannon firing thru the prop! ) I was curious to see if Bell had reduced the shaft RPM between the engine and gearbox, but it looks like 1:1 there. Yep. The normal speed reduction unit for the prop is taken off, and put at the end of the shaft. That might have been of interest to the OP, since his setup will likely drive the shaft at prop rpm (after the psru). Gonna take one tough (probably spelled h.e.a.v.y) shaft for that service... Are there any others? There are numerous dual rotar sling wings that have an interconnected rotor shaft, but they are usually turbine engines. One example is the Osprey. The normal Allison AC engine also had an active fluid torsional resonance reducer at the non driven end of the crankshaft on the engine, and a torsional reducer coupling (rubber) on the drive end. I could not find that info about the aircobra, but I'll bet they are there on that application, also. -- Jim in NC The Bell P-39 Airacobra V-1710 engine does have a direct drive from the crankshaft to the 8 foot extension-shaft. This coupling certainly may have some kind of a damper unit? The rotation speed reduction is done in the nose section PSRU unit. The extension-shaft does have a support bearing unit in the middle of the shaft. Here's some nice pictures about the powerplant/driveline combo http://www.aviation-history.com/engines/allison.htm "However, there were problems with the complex nose-mounted reduction gear, which caused reliability problems and resulted in fairly low serviceability rates as compared with other fighters" (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/p39_1.html). JP |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
("Richard Lamb" wrote)
[150+ lines of quoted text snipped] My pardon, sir! Speaking of reduction units ...! g Montblack :-=) Franz Liebkind: Der Führer does not say, "Achtung, baby." The Producers (1968) |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
"Morgans" wrote in message ... "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote Suppose the prop shaft is to be just long enough for the gear belt pulley and the neccessary bearings - say 10 inches. But the engine flywheel pulley is to be 4 - 6 feet below the prop shaft. The idea is to use a very large multi-blade carbon fiber prop turning 800 - 1000 RPM driven by a 4 cyl Soob turning at best power RPM. The idea is to get best thrust in the 0 - 60 knot range. The airframe configuration is a prop over tail boom pusher - an ultralight on steroids. (BTW, I'm not looking for a long engine life under these conditions. I'll treat the Soob as a throwaway power plant.) Strange, but I am considering a system, very much like that. Flying boat, with the engine in the fuselage, instead of on a pylon. I'm thinking there isn't too much torsional vibration concern with very short shafts, high reving engine and a stiff carbon fiber prop. The prop will be seeing 6 - 7 power pulses per rev from the high reving Soob. On that, I would agree. I believe you will have a new problem, though. I believe that you will have a problem with the belt vibrating, like a guitar string. At some speeds, it will get to the same resonance of the belt, and slap like the devil. I have a 20" band saw that does this every time, as it slows down, right before it stops. One way to deal with this is to make the string (belt) shorter, with some idler pullies. At least that is my plan. It would be a good idea to make the distances between the plies a little different, or it will have a strong tendency to vibrate as a complete string, at a higher fundamental (lowest) frequency. It is the same (in a way) as muffler design. The volume in the different chambers is a little different, so when the frequency is resonating in one chamber, it will not be resonating in the other chamber, thus more frequencies are muffled. -- Jim in NC A low RPM high thrust prop on a high thrust line would be ideal for a seaplane. Actually this is not too different than some motorgliders with the engine buried in the fuselage and the prop on a retractable pylon. The tooth belts have only one or two idler pulleys. I figgured on at least two idlers to maintain belt tension and to damp belt vibrations. I want the engine in an external conformal pod below the fuselage for accessability and to locate it below the pilot for survivability reasons. I'd want the whole engine/cooling system in this pod so it could be removed as a unit. The prop and drive belt would remain with the airframe. Bill D |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
Montblack wrote:
("Richard Lamb" wrote) [150+ lines of quoted text snipped] My pardon, sir! Speaking of reduction units ...! g Montblack :-=) Franz Liebkind: Der Führer does not say, "Achtung, baby." The Producers (1968) Resonance, dude! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
Morgans wrote:
"Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote Suppose the prop shaft is to be just long enough for the gear belt pulley and the neccessary bearings - say 10 inches. But the engine flywheel pulley is to be 4 - 6 feet below the prop shaft. The idea is to use a very large multi-blade carbon fiber prop turning 800 - 1000 RPM driven by a 4 cyl Soob turning at best power RPM. The idea is to get best thrust in the 0 - 60 knot range. The airframe configuration is a prop over tail boom pusher - an ultralight on steroids. (BTW, I'm not looking for a long engine life under these conditions. I'll treat the Soob as a throwaway power plant.) Strange, but I am considering a system, very much like that. Flying boat, with the engine in the fuselage, instead of on a pylon. Curious... Tell me why? What is the advantage? (not argumentative, please - just curious) If I absolutely *had* to do that, I'd think two stages. HTD belt on the first stage from the engine, and either HTD, or Vopar type chain for the final. Come to think of it, probably have to be chain for the final drive due to the length of the thing... But I'm back to the original question - why? Wouldn't that put the engine where you would want to put people? Richard |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
Bill Daniels wrote:
"Morgans" wrote in message ... "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote Suppose the prop shaft is to be just long enough for the gear belt pulley and the neccessary bearings - say 10 inches. But the engine flywheel pulley is to be 4 - 6 feet below the prop shaft. The idea is to use a very large multi-blade carbon fiber prop turning 800 - 1000 RPM driven by a 4 cyl Soob turning at best power RPM. The idea is to get best thrust in the 0 - 60 knot range. The airframe configuration is a prop over tail boom pusher - an ultralight on steroids. (BTW, I'm not looking for a long engine life under these conditions. I'll treat the Soob as a throwaway power plant.) Strange, but I am considering a system, very much like that. Flying boat, with the engine in the fuselage, instead of on a pylon. I'm thinking there isn't too much torsional vibration concern with very short shafts, high reving engine and a stiff carbon fiber prop. The prop will be seeing 6 - 7 power pulses per rev from the high reving Soob. On that, I would agree. I believe you will have a new problem, though. I believe that you will have a problem with the belt vibrating, like a guitar string. At some speeds, it will get to the same resonance of the belt, and slap like the devil. I have a 20" band saw that does this every time, as it slows down, right before it stops. One way to deal with this is to make the string (belt) shorter, with some idler pullies. At least that is my plan. It would be a good idea to make the distances between the plies a little different, or it will have a strong tendency to vibrate as a complete string, at a higher fundamental (lowest) frequency. It is the same (in a way) as muffler design. The volume in the different chambers is a little different, so when the frequency is resonating in one chamber, it will not be resonating in the other chamber, thus more frequencies are muffled. -- Jim in NC A low RPM high thrust prop on a high thrust line would be ideal for a seaplane. Actually this is not too different than some motorgliders with the engine buried in the fuselage and the prop on a retractable pylon. The tooth belts have only one or two idler pulleys. I figgured on at least two idlers to maintain belt tension and to damp belt vibrations. I want the engine in an external conformal pod below the fuselage for accessability and to locate it below the pilot for survivability reasons. I'd want the whole engine/cooling system in this pod so it could be removed as a unit. The prop and drive belt would remain with the airframe. Bill D Ok, that was the quick answer Ricahrd |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
PSRU design advantages
"Morgans" wrote in message ... "Richard Lamb" wrote So it *can* be done. (The cannon firing thru the prop! ) I was curious to see if Bell had reduced the shaft RPM between the engine and gearbox, but it looks like 1:1 there. Yep. The normal speed reduction unit for the prop is taken off, and put at the end of the shaft. That might have been of interest to the OP, since his setup will likely drive the shaft at prop rpm (after the psru). Gonna take one tough (probably spelled h.e.a.v.y) shaft for that service... Are there any others? There are numerous dual rotar sling wings that have an interconnected rotor shaft, but they are usually turbine engines. One example is the Osprey. The normal Allison AC engine also had an active fluid torsional resonance reducer at the non driven end of the crankshaft on the engine, and a torsional reducer coupling (rubber) on the drive end. I could not find that info about the aircobra, but I'll bet they are there on that application, also. -- Jim in NC Sounds like a pretty sure bet to me. BTW, Thanks--I had wondered what Allison did to eliminate resonance. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
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 |