Is there any reason why the particular gear ratio between the rotor
and
the
output shaft (not sure if this is the proper term) was chosen?  Would
there
be a way to modify this so that the PSRU was essentially integrated
into
the
motor?  So, for example, so that 4 turns of the rotor were necessary
for
one
turn of the shaft instead of 2?

Just a thought, but might save alot of weight and one of the major
risk
factors of auto conversions.

Thanks,
Brannon

I am not sure what you mean by "integrated".
Can you come up with a sketch?

Paul Lamar

I think he is suggesting that instead of having the rotors turn once
for
three eccentric shaft revolutions you re gear the ratio to reduce
the e
shaft speed so that you no longer need a prsu. Pretty sure the
answer is no
but I wouldn't be able to come up with the why not (will seem
obvious when
you tell us). Would be a big job anyway, just dealing with the loads
on the
shaft would be challenging.

John

We had guy on here for years and he came come up with this.

Paul Lamar



This is a really imaginative concept...but...
It would seem to me that any asymmetric weight on a rotor would lead
to destructive 'coning' motion of the rotor itself...and also, the con-
necting shaft being slewed around would subject it to constant inertial
'bowing' creating high axial loads on the rotor as well as the prop
bear-
ings.

Even if the 'drive' rotor could be evenly dynamically weighted, the
torque transmission from only one side of the drive rotor could still
cause coning forces on that rotor.  As I see it, the central eshaft cap-
tures torque from both rotors in a fashion that is symmetric in the
plane of rotation for each rotor.

Gene Kahn