Subject: RD Drive - Final Answer??
From: ACRE
Date: 4/25/2004, 1:00 PM



This from Laura Crook- I'm going with the RD-1C.

Brian Trubee

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RD Drive - Final Answer??
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:13:49 -0400
From: "Laura Crook" <laura_crook@hotmail.com>
To: <Bktrub@aol.com>
References: <126.3dcf4570.2da22f17@aol.com>

Hi Brian - Tracy is ready for a final answer on your drive decision (if you're ready to make a decision that is!).

Climb is over 3000 fpm (Ed Anderson flew behind Tracy on a take off from Shady Bend for the trip to SNF.  He said Tracy lifted off the ground in a VERY short
distance.  Ed lifted off - looked up  - and could read Tracy's instrument panel over Tracy's shoulder!!  Ed figured he would level out, but he didn't - Tracy
just kept climbing the climbing.  He did 216.1 mph in the Sun 100 in VERY windy conditions.  Ed has decided to change to the RD-1C drive!).

Let us know ASAP so that I can se the guys on the right course for your drive.

Sincerely,
Laura Crook
RWS Inc



     ----- Original Message -----
     From: Bktrub@aol.com
     To: laura_crook@hotmail.com
     Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 11:40 PM
     Subject: Tracy's imporove glide

     Tracy remarks on his improved glide at idle- I don't know what the RPM (of both the prop and the engine) difference is if any, but isn't a coarser
     pitched prop more "feathered" than a more finely pitched prop? Just speculating. Can't wait to see what the climb is, along with all the other
     performance. Looks a lot like I'll be going with the -C drive.






     Brian Trubee


I could say Duh! but I won't and I'll just include this old message instead :)

Paul Lamar

******************************************************************************

Subject:         psru drive ratio
   Date:         Wed, 23 Jun 1999 21:12:16 -0700
   From:         Paul <rotaryeng@earthlink.net>
     To:         zz <rotaryeng@earthlink.net>

Mike Wills wrote:


 I'm wondering if there is a consensus on drive ratio. Seems most who are
using planetaries on the higher perf airplanes are using 2.17:1 ratio. I
know of a couple of guys though who advocate the 2.85:1 ratio. A local
knowledgable racer who is putting a 13B in an RV-4 is using the Ross
2.85:1. He claims that box uses better gears, and the guys that Ive heard
of who have used it certainly havent had the problems that Ive heard of
with the 2.17:1 box.
 Obviously there is more potential horsepower available at these higher
RPMs (along with higher fuel burn). How is the durability of the engine if
run at a sustained 7500 RPM during take off and climb? Does the engine need
extra beefing up (stationary gears, etc..) for these higher RPMs? Other
advantages/disadvantages?

Thanks,

Mike Wills


I think 7500 RPM would be fine for takeoff and climb. The icing on
the cake would be a variable pitch prop to go along with the 2.85:1
PSRU.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org

*******************************************************************
 
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.