X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail.globalsuite.net ([69.46.103.200] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.0) with SMTP id 2786008 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:22:40 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=69.46.103.200; envelope-from=rusty@radrotary.com X-AuditID: c0a8013c-a88f9bb000004b31-55-47d5c297d5b8 Received: from DELLRD1 (unknown [209.114.234.11]) by mail.globalsuite.net (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 1F2D94DC037 for ; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:21:58 -0600 (MDT) From: "Russell Duffy" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: direct drive- was Re: Anyone have an RD-1C for sale? Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:21:20 -0500 Message-ID: <002701c882a9$40dfc5b0$09b812c6@DELLRD1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0028_01C8827F.5809BDB0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 In-Reply-To: X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C8827F.5809BDB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thrust bearing is a real consideration but not a show stopper. I'm = thinking along the lines of a 3rd gen or Renesis thrust bearing (larger than the = 2nd gen part) and bolting the prop with a short extension directly to the counterweight. The rotary's crankshaft is about the only one I would consider doing this with. This would still mean changing the thrust = bearing every 500 hours or so.=20 =20 Hi Tracy, =20 OK, you have my attention now :-) I was afraid to imagine bolting a = prop right on the counterweight like that, but since you brought it up, it's = fair game to talk about :-)=20 =20 We know the rotary has a bulldog of a shaft, and it sure "seems" like it should be strong enough, but would it really survive prop loads? The = thrust bearings could possibly be upgraded, but they're easy to replace, and so = is the rear main bearing. Could these just be replaced periodically, or = would they need to be upgraded? =20 =20 The real problem is that there are very few airplanes that fit this configuration. The RV-3 is one of them and that's what got me started. = =20 =20 I'll get you for this , but I should be thanking you for giving me something else to think about while I'm stranded in the great white = north. I'll even imagine aluminum housings to lower the weight further :-) =20 Lynn mentioned oversquare operation, and we've all been taught not to = "lug" engines. Would 3500-4000 be lugging, or is it high enough to consider normal WOT operation? Would this sort of operation carbon up the = engines, or would they stay clean? Would EGT's stay at a more reasonable temp?=20 =20 I bet Lynn has an opinion on this :-) =20 Cheers, Rusty=20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C8827F.5809BDB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Thrust bearing is a real consideration but not = a show=20 stopper.  I'm thinking along the lines of a 3rd gen or Renesis = thrust=20 bearing (larger than the 2nd gen part)  and bolting the prop with a = short=20 extension directly to the counterweight.  The rotary's crankshaft = is about=20 the only one I would consider doing this with.  This would = still mean=20 changing the thrust bearing every 500 hours or so. 
 
Hi=20 Tracy,
 
OK, you have=20 my attention now :-)   I was afraid = to imagine bolting a=20 prop right on the counterweight like that, but since you brought it up, = it's=20 fair game to talk about :-) 
 
We=20 know the rotary has a bulldog of a shaft, and it sure "seems" = like it=20 should be strong enough, but would it really survive prop loads?  = The=20 thrust bearings could possibly be upgraded, but they're easy to replace, = and so=20 is the rear main bearing.  Could these just be replaced = periodically,=20 or would they need to be upgraded? 
 
The real problem is that there are very few airplanes that fit this = configuration.  The RV-3 is one of them and that's what got me=20 started.   
 
I'll get you=20 for this <g>, but I should be thanking you for giving me = something else to think about while I'm stranded in the great=20 white north.  I'll even imagine aluminum housings to = lower the=20 weight further :-)
 
Lynn=20 mentioned oversquare operation, and we've all been taught not to "lug"=20 engines.  Would 3500-4000 be lugging, or is it high enough to = consider=20 normal WOT operation?  Would this sort of operation carbon up the = engines,=20 or would they stay clean?  Would EGT's stay at a more reasonable=20 temp? 
 
I bet Lynn has an opinion on this=20 :-)
 
Cheers,
Rusty 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C8827F.5809BDB0--