Todd Carrico wrote:

Since the topic of re-drives is bouncing around, I thought I would ask a
question that has been on my mind for a while.

If I may be so bold as to suggest that most of the design of the
re-drives is for RV style aircraft; where it is desired that the prop
flange be at the same distance from datum as the original power plant.
I.e. Lycoming 320/360.

My application is a four place canard.  Many builders opt for a 4-8 inch
extension to help streamline the fuselage down before the prop, thus
improving the condition of the airflow in that region.

Now I know that extensions on re-drives are a no-no, but what about
lengthening the re-drive?  Is it simple enough to increase the distance
between the tapered rollers?  Place an intermediate bearing halfway?
What is the limit of lengthening the re-drive without taking into
account the weight and balance issues?

Thanks for the wonderful topics lately, hope this one isn't too radical.

tc

I think it would be cheaper to use an extension. There is no ban on

extensions

on redrives as far as I know. Is there one on yours Tracy?

Paul Lamar

The RD-1 had a 'no extension' limitation but the RD-1A & B do not.

Tracy Crook
tcrook@rotaryaviation.com
www.rotaryaviation.com

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org