X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.4) with ESMTPS id 5381892 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:56:25 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by lagy4 with SMTP id y4so1740610lag.25 for ; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:55:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=1llMavTRE/lQecXhooHX57PwoZZEAOe8qM5U0q0EH/o=; b=UHbiWHhryBrxVX7xmIIQtCfWLCqHVAAodhwpN0WNpJCbfH9G3nCaLikgkHSyquLMJ4 OhS1D00rlwgZbWecIKwecI/00OatU87RizON63ilDLDPjN7n1vX5J4c/mkVZ6OSonijg X2bTuVw6w8y7mWrdl841tKcY1AH0mhV9DVkUM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.105.175 with SMTP id gn15mr4356967lab.23.1328295349517; Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:55:49 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.75.74 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:55:49 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:55:49 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New Flywheel for RD-1x redrives From: Tracy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0407143776fc4e04b813dcf9 --f46d0407143776fc4e04b813dcf9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Don't know the dimensions of the generator in question but one of the design goals was to change as little as possible, so the distance between engine and gearbox was unchanged. On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Ernest Christley wrote: > Tracy wrote: > > Replacing the damper is a flanged spline that is bolted directly to > > the flywheel using the same bolts (longer bolts required) that attach > > the flywheel to the counterweight. The spline is a different spec (15 > > splines instead of 30) so it is not compatible with the RD-1 damper > > but the new shaft itself is backward compatible with the remainder of > > the drive. I retrofitted the same RD-1C that was on my RV-4 for these > > tests. > > Did this change increase the distance between the rear of the gearbox > and front of the engine? Specifically, is there room to slip in an > inline generator without modifications of the system? > > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > --f46d0407143776fc4e04b813dcf9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Don't know the dimensions of the generator in question but one of the d= esign goals was to change as little as possible, so the distance between en= gine and gearbox was unchanged.


On Fr= i, Feb 3, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:=
Tracy wrote:
> Replacing the damper is a flanged spline that is bolted directly to > the flywheel using the same bolts (longer bolts required) that attach<= br> > the flywheel to the counterweight. =A0The spline is a different spec (= 15
> splines instead of 30) so it is not compatible with the RD-1 damper > but the new shaft itself is backward compatible with the remainder of<= br> > the drive. =A0I retrofitted the same RD-1C that was on my RV-4 for the= se
> tests.

Did this change increase the distance between the rear of the gearbox=
and front of the engine? =A0Specifically, is there room to slip in an
inline generator without =A0modifications of the system?


--
Homepage: =A0http:/= /www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists= /flyrotary/List.html

--f46d0407143776fc4e04b813dcf9--