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 1695104 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:17:46 -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 kBKIFqiI008637 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:15:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001501c72462$e2538db0$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 13:15:51 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0012_01C72438.F91E27A0" 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_0012_01C72438.F91E27A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 I agree, Bill, a prop is a prop, but even there - there is at least one = rather radical prop design, that came out within the last year or so = which is reportedly such an improvement that the small class type air = racers are seeing remarkable increases in airspeed at the same rpm. =20 This is the strange looking Ellippse race prop designed by Paul Lipps = and reportedly gives tremendous increase in airspeed for the same prop = rpm. I mean considerably more that 5-10 MPH increases have been = reported - and while I am not aware of any publish data on testing, they = apparently are dominating their class in air races. =20 Report on Reno Air Races The Gold Biplanes, which didn't race Friday due to high winds, were = dominated by Californians Tom Aberle and Jeff Lo, with their unusual = propellers, designed by Paul Lipps. =20 So my point is new ideas are out there - some may pay off in better = props, better prop controllers all lighter, better (and hopefully = cheaper {:>)) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: wrjjrs@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 12:44 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys Ed, The thing about props is that you can't really tell the difference = between one designed for A Rotary or a Lyc. Tip speed limits being what = they are we are all limited to a max prop RPM around 2700-3000 max RPM. = You know this of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. Weight is = another mater, Eggenfellner (Subaru FWF conversions if you're not = familiar) is working with Senisich on a new lightweight composite prop = blade. They are doing multiple blade hubs with Egg's=20 =20 -----Original Message----- From: eanderson@carolina.rr.com To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Sent: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 8:03 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed prop for rotarys 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<=20 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_0012_01C72438.F91E27A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
I agree, Bill, a prop is a prop, = but even=20 there - there is at least one rather radical prop design, that came out = within=20 the last year or so which is reportedly  such an improvement that=20 the small class type air racers are seeing remarkable = increases in=20 airspeed at the same rpm. 
 
This is the strange looking Ellippse = race prop=20 designed by Paul Lipps and reportedly gives tremendous increase in = airspeed for=20 the same prop rpm.  I mean considerably more that 5-10 MPH = increases have=20 been reported - and while I am not aware of any publish data on testing, = they=20 apparently are dominating their class in air races. 
 

Report on Reno Air Races

 

The Gold Biplanes, which didn't race Friday due to high winds, were = dominated=20 by Californians Tom Aberle and Jeff Lo, with their unusual = propellers, designed=20 by Paul Lipps. 

 

So my point is new ideas are out there - = some may pay=20 off in better props, better prop controllers  all lighter, better = (and=20 hopefully cheaper {:>))

 

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 wrjjrs@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, = 2006 12:44=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = hydraulic=20 constant speed prop for rotarys

Ed, The thing about props is that you can't really tell the = difference=20 between one designed for A Rotary or a Lyc. Tip speed = limits being=20 what they are we are all limited to a max prop RPM around 2700-3000 = max=20 RPM. You know this of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. Weight is another mater, = Eggenfellner=20 (Subaru FWF conversions if you're not familiar) is working with Senisich on a new lightweight = composite=20 prop blade. They are doing multiple blade hubs with Egg's 
 
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Sent: = Wed, 20=20 Dec 2006 8:03 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: hydraulic constant speed = prop for=20 rotarys

Bill, I certainly do not question the = likelihood=20 of demand for a rotary C/S increasing.   Not having any = experience=20 with a C/S prop other than a few hours behind one early (real early) = in my=20 flying career, I'll certainly defer to those with more = experience/knowledge=20 with the prop.  For Lycoming and other big displacement piston = engines, I=20 agree that the current arrangement is likely the best that could be = developed=20 - at the time - and perhaps even now.
 
  I am not as certain that = technology in=20 many 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=20 current incarnation of the prop governor.  But, if I study the = problem, I=20 might 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=20
To: Rotary=20 motors in aircraft
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, = 2006=20 10:37 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=20 biggest advantage of this drive is that the reduction is already = built in. I=20 think that is why Mistral went this way. Another fact is that = you would be=20 hard pressed to come up with anything that is lighter for doing this = job=20 than the current hyd/CS. I have seen a few inventive controls, but = none that=20 work even 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=20 prop for rotarys

Hey, Bill,  I think it would be great if a = light=20 weight relatively inexpensive way could be found of providing the = required=20 hydraulic pressure and speed control (adapting a lycoming = governor is one=20 way).  It wouldn't hurt my heavy RV-6A getting = up quickly=20 out of short grass strips either.
 
I think had there been a large demand for Tracy's=20 gear box to have the provisions for it, it probably would have been=20 incorporated in the design - but the old chicken and egg=20 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=20 understood correctly.  Wonder how much it weighs?
 
Ed
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 WRJJRS@aol.com
To: Rotary 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,=20 eanderson@carolina.rr.com 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=20 to the speed, I figured that the governor would require a = reduction=20 identical (or really close) to the PSRU. This could be a = toothed=20 belt/pulley system. With the reduction any standard governor would = work.=20 Mistral uses a helical right angle drive to = a pad on=20 the side of the prop shaft. I've also seen a v-belt driving off a = pulley=20 at the front similar to the O-360 Lyc = alternator drive.=20 Some movement is OK it needn't be timed. The reason I'm interested = is the=20 RV-10 will probably benefit from a CS<=20
 As you mentioned the RV-4 hardly needs a CS. Just=20 more complication. I am supprised Tracy didn't = think about=20 the other planes that would or could be using the drive when going = into=20 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_0012_01C72438.F91E27A0--