> > > > Here is another picture showing the difference between the

 > > > 2.85 and the 2.17. The 2.85 is the larger pinion. If you rearrange
 > > > the 2.17 gear set you get 3.17 by holding the ring gear and take
 > > > power out of the planet carrier. I don't know why anybody with
 > > > a rotary would want to use the 1.85 version.
 > > >
 > > > BTW IMHO the best way to hold the ring gear is use six drilled head
 > > > hex bolt set screws in groups of two equally spaced around the outer
 > > > housing and safety wire them.
 > > >
 > > > Paul Lamar

 >George Lendich wrote:
 > >
 > > Paul,
 > > Are we thinking along the same lines i.e. using your suggested
bolts like
 > > the 2.17 toothed flange is used to hold the 2.17 planetary.
 > > If so that a good idea, my only concern is drilling into the
ring gear and
 > > going right through the teeth.
 > > George
 >
 >Don't drill into it. Just grind a few small shallow depressions where
 >the set screws go.
 >
 >Paul Lamar

 I had been under the impression that the entire planet assembly was
 supposed to have a slight amount of "float" as opposed to being held
 rigidly to the case.  The thinking was that this allowed for the assembly
 to self align and prevent any spalling of the gears.  Of course it would
 need to be tight enough to the case to prevent any fretting of the
 ring/case interface.  Is that not the purpose of the notched flange on the
 2.17 set?

 Mike McGee, RV-4 N996RV, O320-E2G, Hillsboro, OR
 13B in gestation mode

There are two schools of thought on this. First is the float school
and then there is the precision school. Tracy started out with
float on his Ross. He did not like the wear marks as the 2.17 planet carrier
moved around in the aluminum case. He then went to the precision idea.
Jury is still out IMHO although Tracy's approach is looking good so far.

As far as practical matters are concerned you could broach the aluminum
housing to mate with the splines on the outer part of the ring gear
at great expense and let it float. Using set screws is a much cheaper
solution. Assuming a 2.85 or a 3.17 of course.

Most of the failures reported in the last 5 years have been due to
inaccurate machining on Ross's part I suspect. That and the missing
helical gear thrust bearing in most of Ross's product.

Paul Lamar

   I lost three engines in 400 hrs due to the Ross, two due to the
thrust and one lost a planet bearing, have 700 hrs on cog belts now
with no problems.

  My fiend that rebuilds transmission said that he sees a hell of a
lot of planet bearing failures but then again they probably have a
kagillion miles on them and how does that translate into flying hrs,
just got to figure out where the safe limit is and besides that
planet assembly is fairly cheep to replace now and then for insurance.

   My old Ross was a 3.17 4 pinion.
  Just thinking about it now but I have to build a new set of wings
for the Coot first.

  Ken

 
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.