|
Big John wrote:
> My friends who flew the P-39, always said they worried about the drive
> shaft running between their legs, breaking loose :o)
>
> Big John
> ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:23:05 GMT, George <gvig01@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Richard Lamb wrote:
>>> ADK wrote:
>>>
>>>> IF you had to design a PSRU, to drive a pusher propellor via shaft,
>>>> what would your experience dictate? Thinking along the lines of a
>>>> gearbelt, chain or gear. Please, I'd appreciate the collective
>>>> experience available on this group. I've decided on the aircraft,
>>>> but want to make it the most reliable and safest it can be.
>>>>
>>>> "ADK" <aklettke@okanagan.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:X6TXf.28774$%H.11944@clgrps13...
>>>>
>>>>> This is probably going to open old wounds. What I'd like is
>>>>> experienced input on the advantages, for economic, efficiency and
>>>>> longevity etc. of different types of redrives.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm leaning towards a cog-belt reducer in a 6 cylinder, liquid
>>>>> cooled, configuration driving a long drive shaft to the prop.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The collective experience is zilch = nada = squat = undefined.
>>>
>>> THAT is what everybody had been trying to tell you.
>>>
>>> Wait a second. Look around the airport.
>>>
>>> How many shaft driven propellers do you see?
>>>
>>> Have you ever seen?
>>>
>>> If you are heart set on doing it, I sincerely wish you luck.
>>>
>>> But I cannot offer any further advice - 'cuz they ain't none...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Didn't the military do this once?? Seems there was the P-39 Aircobra,
>> shaft driven from a rear mounted engine?? Are the gray cells working
>> that far back??
>>
>> Not that it would be applicable to an experimental, but at least It was
>> once done?
>>
>> George
>
Sounds like a legitimate concern to me
|
|
Re: PSRU design advantages
