X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 30 [X] Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.3) with ESMTP id 1694709 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:04:00 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-100-190.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.100.190]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id kBKG2ofF027408 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:02:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000b01c72450$552e4db0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:03:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0008_01C72426.6BAA5270" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C72426.6BAA5270 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, I certainly do not question the likelihood of demand for a rotary = C/S increasing. Not having any experience with a C/S prop other than a = few hours behind one early (real early) in my flying career, I'll = certainly defer to those with more experience/knowledge with the prop. = For Lycoming and other big displacement piston engines, I agree that the = current arrangement is likely the best that could be developed - at the = time - and perhaps even now. I am not as certain that technology in many areas has not advanced = considerably since the early 1950s that might lend themselves to lighter = C/S props for the rotary without the need for the current incarnation of = the prop governor. But, if I study the problem, I might easily change = that assessment. My bird simple could not stand 50 lbs or so stuck out on the end of the = nose. 15 lbs additional - perhaps. Again, not knocking C/S props, just not certain adopting the current = configuration for Lycomings/Continentals is what we need - just my = opinion of course. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:37 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys Ed, I believe that there will be more and more requests for such a = system. All the reductions I suggested would allow a currently available = governor to work. Tracy could do a new prop shaft housing to drive from = helicals like Mistral, but it would be expensive. The biggest advantage = of this drive is that the reduction is already built in. I think that is = why Mistral went this way. Another fact is that you would be hard = pressed to come up with anything that is lighter for doing this job than = the current hyd/CS. I have seen a few inventive controls, but none that = work even close to as well as current hydraulics. Bill =20 -----Original Message----- From: eanderson@carolina.rr.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 5:37 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys Hey, Bill, I think it would be great if a light weight relatively = inexpensive way could be found of providing the required hydraulic = pressure and speed control (adapting a lycoming governor is one way). = It wouldn't hurt my heavy RV-6A getting up quickly out of short grass = strips either. I think had there been a large demand for Tracy's gear box to have the = provisions for it, it probably would have been incorporated in the = design - but the old chicken and egg situation. Perhaps the one that Lou referred to may be the answer as its = hydraulic control is apparently internal to the prop hub - if I = understood correctly. Wonder how much it weighs? Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: WRJJRS@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:19 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys In a message dated 12/19/2006 10:53:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, = eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: Guess I did, Bill. I know the governor has the pump to do this, = its just I've not found a governor suitable for a rotary engine. OK Ed, I kind of figured you understood about the pump in the governor. As = to the speed, I figured that the governor would require a reduction = identical (or really close) to the PSRU. This could be a toothed = belt/pulley system. With the reduction any standard governor would work. = Mistral uses a helical right angle drive to a pad on the side of the = prop shaft. I've also seen a v-belt driving off a pulley at the front = similar to the O-360 Lyc alternator drive. Some movement is OK it = needn't be timed. The reason I'm interested is the RV-10 will probably = benefit from a CS. As you mentioned the RV-4 hardly needs a CS. Just more = complication. I am supprised Tracy didn't think about the other planes = that would or could be using the drive when going into production = though. Bill Jepson=20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and = security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from = across the web, free AOL Mail and more. ------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C72426.6BAA5270 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill, I certainly do not question the = likelihood of=20 demand for a rotary C/S increasing.   Not having any = experience with a=20 C/S prop other than a few hours behind one early (real early) in my = flying=20 career, I'll certainly defer to those with more experience/knowledge = with the=20 prop.  For Lycoming and other big displacement piston engines, I = agree that=20 the current arrangement is likely the best that could be developed - at = the time=20 - and perhaps even now.
 
  I am not as certain that = technology in many=20 areas has not advanced considerably since the early 1950s that might = lend=20 themselves to lighter C/S props for the rotary without the need for the = current=20 incarnation of the prop governor.  But, if I study the problem, I = might=20 easily change that assessment.
 
My bird simple could  not stand 50 = lbs or so=20 stuck out on the end of the nose.  15  lbs additional -=20 perhaps.
 
Again, not knocking C/S props, just not = certain=20 adopting the current configuration for Lycomings/Continentals is what we = need -=20 just my opinion of course.
 
Ed
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 wrjjrs@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, = 2006 10:37=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = hydraulic=20 constant speed prop for rotarys

Ed, I believe that there will be more and more requests for such = a=20 system. All the reductions I suggested would allow a currently=20 available governor to work. Tracy could do a new prop shaft = housing to=20 drive from helicals like Mistral, but it would be expensive. The = biggest=20 advantage of this drive is that the reduction is already built in. I = think=20 that is why Mistral went this way. Another fact is that you would be = hard=20 pressed to come up with anything that is lighter for doing this job = than the=20 current hyd/CS. I have seen a few inventive controls, but none that = work even=20 close to as well as current hydraulics.
Bill
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From:=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: = Wed, 20=20 Dec 2006 5:37 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed = prop for=20 rotarys

Hey, Bill,  I think it would be great if a = light weight=20 relatively inexpensive way could be found of providing the required = hydraulic=20 pressure and speed control (adapting a lycoming governor is one = way).  It=20 wouldn't hurt my heavy RV-6A getting up quickly out of short = grass strips=20 either.
 
I think had there been a large demand for Tracy's = gear box=20 to have the provisions for it, it probably would have been = incorporated in the=20 design - but the old chicken and egg situation.
 
Perhaps the one that Lou referred to may be the = answer as=20 its hydraulic control is apparently internal to the prop hub - if I = understood=20 correctly.  Wonder how much it weighs?
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 WRJJRS@aol.com=20
To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, = 2006=20 12:19 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = hydraulic=20 constant speed prop for rotarys

In a message dated 12/19/2006 10:53:12 AM Pacific Standard = Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com=20 writes:
Guess I did, Bill.  = I know the=20 governor has the pump to do this, its just I've not found a = governor=20 suitable for a rotary engine.
OK Ed,
I kind of figured you understood about the pump in the = governor. As to=20 the speed, I figured that the governor would require a reduction = identical=20 (or really close) to the PSRU. This could be a toothed belt/pulley = system.=20 With the reduction any standard governor would work. Mistral uses a = helical=20 right angle drive to a pad on the side of the prop shaft. I've also = seen a=20 v-belt driving off a pulley at the front similar to the O-360 Lyc = alternator=20 drive. Some movement is OK it needn't be timed. The reason I'm = interested is=20 the RV-10 will probably benefit from a CS.
 As you mentioned the RV-4 hardly needs a CS. Just more=20 complication. I am supprised Tracy didn't think about the other = planes that=20 would or could be using the drive when going into production = though.
Bill Jepson 
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive = set of free=20 safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality = videos from=20 across the web, free AOL Mail and = more.
------=_NextPart_000_0008_01C72426.6BAA5270--