|
Bill,
I agree, and that is what I felt that was needed,
but wanted your opinion on it, as your the engineer. I wasn't alluding to
thicker plates - just means more weight IMHO. Thicker is stronger for
agricultural equipment and the farmer's needs that's for sure, it even
looks good on the land - but not for the aviator who is balancing strength
with weight issues.
I though bringing this up might help Jerry design
out potential problems, if he ventured down this path.
George ( down under)
George,
If anything needs beefing up it would be the fore and aft
direction. That could be improved by boxing the sides of the beams supporting
the bearings. That would do more than thicker plates. That could be done with
way less material that way rather than making the plates thicker
Bill
Jepson
-----Original Message-----
From: George Lendich
<lendich@optusnet.com.au>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
<flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:11
am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: PSRU
Bill,
The front plate does not appear to be
tied to the rear plate ( at the top) other than with the prop shaft itself -
to me it looks like there could be some flexing of this front cantilevered
(from the bottom bellhousing) plate.
Something I think could be better engineered - do
you feel it's stiff enough?
It also looks very agricultural! I'm sure
Jerry could make a much nicer job of it.
George ( down under)
Jerry, the plate behind the bellhousing looks 50% thicker than it needs
to be for a double sided system. I do give him points for originality
though. He needs to use a aluminum top sprocket for sure! Good support on
both sides for sure, looks super stout. My guess is that the belt is certain
to be the weak link in that system. He could do a serious lightening job on
that and still be quite solid. Good re-sourcing of original materials. Bill
Jepson -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Hey < jerry@jerryhey.com> To: Rotary
motors in aircraft < flyrotary@lancaironline.net> Sent:
Wed, 30 Apr 2008 2:45 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: PSRU
George,
you are very hard to please! I think the guy who made this knew what he was
doing. I'd like to know the weight too. One thing is for sure, a belt drive
has to have two sprockets, upper and lower shafts, prop flange and so on.
They all weigh at least 40 lbs. I think weight could be saved back by
incorporating the alternator in the drive similar to Briggs and Stratton,
likewise the forward engine mounts. Make that extra structure earn its keep.
Jerry On Apr 30, 2008, at 5:21 PM, George Lendich
wrote: > >> Does anyone recognize this
drive? I found the photo yesterday but >> with no
information. I think it is a beauty and I would like to
know >> more. Jerry > >
Jerry, > It looks very much a home made job, the top belt wheel
looks to be > made of something solid and would be heavy I would imagine.
I can't > say I like it or the engine mount - but Paul's the expert
there. > I'm sure you could make something better
Jerry. > It looks like they put the engine really low to cater
for the off-> set thrust line - I wonder if it was made for a
pusher? > George ( down under) > >
-- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub:
http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > -- Homepage:
http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7 - Release Date: 30/04/2008
12:00 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.7/1408 - Release Date:
30/04/2008 6:10 PM
|