Subject: Aluminum end housings status.
From: ACRE
Date: 5/3/2003, 10:41 PM


Just came away from a meeting with the aluminum end housing coalition.
IE. Foundry.. machine shop.. pattern maker.
They have come up with a very VERY good way of positively locking the
through
hardened steel wear surfaces into the aluminum castings. We are
all very excited about the prospect of a 150 pound rotary engine
putting out 250 HP and doing it with no fuel burn penalty.
Now if I can get 15 pounds out of a 3:1 gear box we
will have one heck of an aircraft engine.

Paul Lamar

Dan Ruggirello wrote:

That's great news Paul!  If the price is right, I'll be signing up for
these
housings.  BTW, are you planning on doing a radiograph or ultrasonic
inspection of the metal to metal joint as part of the development
process?

I don't see any reason why at least 15 lbs can't be shaved off a
gearbox
with the proper housing design.  I'll lend any support I can to get a
lighter weight gearbox going.  I am still thinking about making an
ultimate
bell housing mold, but if someone can get that going sooner, I'll do
any
stress/dynamics required.  I think a solid stress and dynamics
analysis will
be key to making a lightweight gearbox.

If the 150 lb /250HP goal becomes reality - sooner or later good bye
!

Dan


Me too on the mold. I was thinking a spinning on the bell housing part
and welded aluminum tubing on the rest of it along with some machined
aluminum plate (ribs with draft). All tig welded up. I think a
six pinion ring gear held stationary with power out of the planet
carrier
on a A4OD 2.17 gear set will yield a 3.15 over all gear reduction
for an RX8 based motor. 8500 takeoff RPM divided by 3.15 is 2700 RPM.

Lycoming should give up now.  Resistance is futile.

Paul Lamar

BTW to put this engine weight into perspective for the new guys here is
a list of aircraft engine weights.

*************************************************************************
The trouble with this data is: It is probably
dry weight less starter and generator or alternator
whatever the case may be. In the case of the O-200
I know this to be a fact. It is dry weight less starter
and alternator.

            Continental

    Engine       Horsepower   Weight   Ratio
    O-200-A           100      190     0.53
    O-200-B           100      190     0.53
    O-300-A           145      268     0.54
    O-300-E           145      268     0.54
    IO-346            165      297     0.56
    IO-360-B          210      327     0.64
    TSIO-360-A        210      334     0.63
    O-470-J           225      381     0.59
    O-470-R           230      438     0.53
    O-470-13          225      414     0.54
    O-470-15          190      405     0.47
    IO-470-C          250      432     0.58
    IO-470-D          260      426     0.61
    IO-470-E          260      461     0.56
    IO-470-F          260      464     0.56
    IO-470-V          260      472     0.55
    TSIO-470-D        260      511     0.51
    IO-520-L          285      466     0.61

                    Lycoming

    O-235-C1B           115      240     0.48
    O-290-D2C           140      263     0.53
    O-320-A2B           150      272     0.55
    O-320-A2C           150      271     0.55
    O-320-B2C           160      277     0.58
    O-320-D2A           160      277     0.58
    O-320-E2A           160      277     0.58
    IO-320-B1A          160      285     0.56
    IO-320-C1A          160      294     0.54
    IO-320-E2A          150      280     0.54
    O-360-A1D           180      284     0.63
    O-360-A3A           180      285     0.63
    IO-360-A1A          200      320     0.63
    IO-360-B1B          180      295     0.61
    IMO-360-B1B         225      274     0.82
    GO-480-B1D          270      432     0.63
    GO-480-G1D6         295      437     0.68
    IGO-480-A1B6        295      469     0.63
    IGSO-480-A1F6       340      498     0.68
    O-540-A1A5          250      396     0.63
    O-540-B2B5          235      395     0.59
    O-540-B4B5          235      395     0.59
    O-540-B4B5          260      398     0.65
    IO-540-A1A5         290      437     0.66
    IO-540-C4B5         250      402     0.62
    IO-540-D4A5         260      402     0.65
    IO-540-E1A5         290      437     0.66
    IO-540-G1A5         290      443     0.65
    IO-540-J4A5         250      409     0.61
    IO-540-K1A5         300      470     0.64
    AEIO-540-L1B5D      300      476     0.63
    IGO-540-B1C         350      500     0.70
    IGSO-540-A1D        380      530     0.72
    IGSO-540-B1A        380      532     0.71
    TIO-540-A1A         310      535     0.58
    TIO-541-E1A6        380      632     0.60
    TIOGO-541-A1A       400      663     0.60
    IO-720-A1A          400      597     0.67


Paul Lamar

Robin Ream wrote:

    If the end housings can shave off that much weight and still be as
strong as what we presently have that would be a spectacular thing, but what
other changes would accompany the new end housings?  Would center housings
and rotors stay the same, and in the end are we going to be ahead of or
behind the renesis engine in terms of suitability for aviation?  --  And for
those of us with 20B's who need the extra power, could the renesis be
stretched into a three rotor, or is the end housing change going to put us
in a "virtually just as good" position with respect to the renesis if we
make these conversions on our 20B's (comparing two rotors to two rotors, and
three to three.)

Thanks for your thoughts,
Robin

We are doing the center housings as well. I would like to do the three rotor
special intermediate housing but so far I have been unable to obtain
on the cut apart for pattern making purposes.

We will eventually do side exhaust port versions.

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.