Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <418EBABF.7030702@nc.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:15:59 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: PM alternator/generator with EWP
References: <list-521752@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-521752@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

rijakits wrote:
> Again, my question:
>>From where do you have the idea, that belts are the major prolblem?
> 
> Thomas J.
> 
> 


Not a major problem...but a potential softspot in any installation. 
They are very susceptible to heat and abrasion.  Things that can be 
engineered out with a mass production car line, but are somewhat iffy in 
a one-off plane installation.

Added to that is the weight of two pulleys, a belt or two, and mounting 
hardware, and you possibly have something that is quite a bit heavier 
than necessary...especially considering that the mount and housing are 
built studier than would be necessary without the sideload and vibration 
caused by a belt.

I believe that a direct-drive, PM generator could be fitted to a 13B. 
It could possibly be lighter, occupy less room and be more reliable.  If 
the EWP is used, the total installation would be simpler, as one of the 
reasons for a belt have been eliminated already.

-- 
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."