This is the initial PSRU design.
  My CAD designer is using a different propeller flange design rather
  than screwed one.
  When I asked why he is not using the screwed one these his comments.

  "I am certain that the flange using the set screws to has never been
  used successfully in practice in a power transmission for an
  aircraft. The set screw concept will not support the torque that the
  shaft will transfer to the propeller. If you want, I can provide a
  model the flange as you have shown but it will most certainly fail
  in operation.

  The models that I have been working on are sized to handle the 700
  Nm of torque transmission for the duty cycle of the aircraft. The
  flange that I has been developed is very similar to the
  "tracy-crook-new-shaft2.jpg" image.

  Let me know if I should copy the set-screw concept instead of what
  has been developed."

  Regards

  Zahid  Rahman



  No mention of extended point. I don't think he ever heard of one.
  The concept could
  be an American invention that has not made it to the UK.

  Sounds like he doesn’t understand you can use 24 extended point set
  screws.

  Is he an engineer or just a machinist? In the UK the engineer name
  is applied to many
  people with out a university degree in engineering.


  Ask him to calculate the shear stress on the extended point set
  screws and see what he says.

  The design submitted is too heavy and the shaft will crack at the
  root of the front spline.
  The designer is a drafts men and not an inexperienced design engineer.
  Also very expensive to machine out of billet 4130 steel and aluminium.
  The designer obviously has no experiences designing aircraft gear boxes.

  However it is a very pretty dwg :)

  Copy the Ross exactly. Have the drafts men draw the Ross and send
  that to me.
  I will check it and make sure the dimensions are the same as the Ross.
  Don't send a PDF. Have him give you an IGES file. IGES files have
  the dimensions.

  Paul Lamar

  The attachment shows the  3:17:1
  1. This one will go with 135 - 140 HP Single rotor engine ?

  2. Can we not use the PSRU combination adapter mount plate ?

  Richard with single rotor got 95 HP with 12A.
  3. Which base engine are you suggesting to use for a single rotor
  with to get 135-140 HP ?
  Richard Sohn only turned the p-port engine to 6000 RPM. To get well
  over a 100 HP
  you need to turn the 13B or RX8 based single rotor engine to 8000
  RPM with
  a 3.17 : 1 planetary gear box.  The RX8 street car redline is 9000 RPM.

  HP = RPM times TORQUE.

  Torque is the same more or less and mostly is a function of
  the p-port intake manifold length and the displacement of the engine.

  If you don't use the adapter plate you will have to make a bell housing
  of some sort with built in motor mounts. A sand cast bell housing is way
  too heavy. A stock Mazda die cast bell housing has no provisions for
  mounting
  the engine.

  Use the adapter plate.

  Paul Lamar

  The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux.
  ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
  You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
  Copyright 1998-2015 All world wide rights reserved.