Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 620958 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:38:13 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristl@cisco.com Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Jan 2005 09:37:44 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Received: from [172.18.179.151] (echristl-linux.cisco.com [172.18.179.151]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j0PEbfoA024809 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:37:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41F659B5.3080909@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:37:41 -0500 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040929 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Flex plate <> Flywheel [FlyRotary] Re: flexplate References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lehanover@aol.com wrote: >My best race engine had 154.3 foot pounds at 7,800 RPM (229.4 HP) >Best power at 9,400 RPM (244.9 HP) 136.7 foot pounds. > >That 800 foot pounds at 7,800 would give you 1,188 HP. > >Probably not a factor. RPM X Torque / 5252 = HP > >The flex plate is not a problem. > >Lynn E. Hanover > > I'm with you, Lynn, and I agree with your math and the fact that the bolts are strong enough. But the 800ft/lb (right or wrong) was referring to the peak torque, which will be significantly greater than the average torque which would be derived from the HP figures. I just think that it's an important point that anything in the drivetrain should be designed with the peak torque in mind. (lest we doth shaketh the lesser pieces, and the airplane doth falleth from the sky).