VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #11  
Old 01-22-2011, 12:26 PM
1:1 Scale 1:1 Scale is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: S21, Oregon
Posts: 161
Default Ask and ye shall recieve......

Wing loading might be a bit high though.........

__________________
Kelly
RV-7 empennage done, wings done, fuselage to QB stage.
1973 Maule M4-220C flying
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-22-2011, 01:55 PM
kauaikarl kauaikarl is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Van Nuys, CA
Posts: 62
Default Dynacam

There's a discussion about this engine on homebuiltairplanes.com . The axial engines group mentioned on a post above with a web site is the group that got control of Dynacam but they are just blowing smoke now, so I'm told. The discussion on homebuiltairplanes is connected to the original people. They are wondering what anyone has to say about the engine, good or bad.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-22-2011, 01:55 PM
John Clark's Avatar
John Clark John Clark is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 1,324
Default Two issues...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post
Second, the engine operates at 2000 RPM, which is far from "too slow" for propellers. It's better, in fact than the 2500-2700 range we use now. Noise goes down, and efficiency goes way up with a big, slow turning propeller.
The Dynacam design does have a low output RPM, but there is a catch, the piston speed is quite high, due to the "ratio" between the pistons and the output shaft. At 2000 RPM, the piston speed is the same as turning a Lycoming 4500 RPM. As Mike said, the propeller problem can be addressed, but the easy way is with diameter and that could get interesting. I used to fly a turboprop that a max prop RPM of 1600, but the props were over 10 feet in diameter. Might pose a problem on the ground in an RV airframe.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-22-2011, 11:23 PM
Snowflake's Avatar
Snowflake Snowflake is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elippse View Post
But I have a little plastic model that I bought from the company for $16.00 that sits on my dining-room table and is a great conversation piece. You can twirl the shaft and watch all 12 of those little pistons go back and forth twice per rev! 'Wonder what I can get for it on E-bay?
You *bought* one of those? Ouch. The company sent our flying club a *box* of 30 models, complete with brochures, for free, about 5 years ago. I think half of them are still in the back of the office at our clubhouse. Neat model, though.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-23-2011, 10:12 AM
elippse elippse is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Posts: 938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowflake View Post
You *bought* one of those? Ouch. The company sent our flying club a *box* of 30 models, complete with brochures, for free, about 5 years ago. I think half of them are still in the back of the office at our clubhouse. Neat model, though.
Yeah, Rob, that was back when I had more money than sense. Now I have less of both!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-23-2011, 07:46 PM
breister breister is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post
OK, there are some people putting out feelers to get production started once again on the Dynacam, and in the ensuing discussions, it is universally agreed that the engine operates without any perceptible vibration.
Do you have some links to anyone who has conducted tests? I was very excited about this engine many years back, but read several reports about vibration being an issue.

Quote:
Second, the engine operates at 2000 RPM, which is far from "too slow" for propellers. It's better, in fact than the 2500-2700 range we use now. Noise goes down, and efficiency goes way up with a big, slow turning propeller.
All fine and good if you have a plane that can swing a big prop, not so convenient if you have a little plane.

Weight and balance will be an issue too, with the motor being so long. Well, anything is possible and I hope it works out!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-24-2011, 04:38 PM
Toobuilder's Avatar
Toobuilder Toobuilder is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mojave
Posts: 4,652
Default

The hyperlink in my first post goes to the thread on the Homebuilt Airplanes forum. Several people in that discussion seem to have first hand knowledge of the engine.

As to big props on little airplanes, there is more than one way to reduce the "wing loading" of an airfoil. Increasing the span (diameter) is just one choice.
__________________
WARNING! Incorrect design and/or fabrication of aircraft and/or components may result in injury or death. Information presented in this post is based on my own experience - Reader has sole responsibility for determining accuracy or suitability for use.

Michael Robinson
______________
Harmon Rocket II -SDS EFI
RV-8 - SDS CPI
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1984 L39C
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-24-2011, 05:38 PM
elippse elippse is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Arroyo Grande, CA
Posts: 938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toobuilder View Post
The hyperlink in my first post goes to the thread on the Homebuilt Airplanes forum. Several people in that discussion seem to have first hand knowledge of the engine.

As to big props on little airplanes, there is more than one way to reduce the "wing loading" of an airfoil. Increasing the span (diameter) is just one choice.
Right! And adding more blades is another!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-07-2011, 05:27 AM
jhausch jhausch is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 40
Default

There is a gentleman on the homebuilthelp forum who insists that the RV'ers have summarily dismissed the engine.

Since I've noticed homebuilders of all sorts (RV and otherwise) to be resistant to pigeonholing, I'm dubious of the claim. Then again, if all of you RV'rs have decided to now only make your decisions collectively, I stand corrected (that's a tongue in cheek comment, BTW)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-07-2011, 03:28 PM
flyboy1963's Avatar
flyboy1963 flyboy1963 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lake Country, B.C. Canada
Posts: 2,416
Default the holy grail...again

Ah don't we all love that 'new' engine that is 'just on the horizon'.....welll, maybe our kids hover cars will be powered by a dynaCam.
sounds a lot like the K-cycle started by some prof at University in Manitoba.
...I thought I'd hear they were using it to power some types of torpedo's?...but of course, that has kind of a low TBO, and ample coolant at hand!
Perhaps the proliferation of small cnc production capability will have a positive effect on these types of operations. Too bad the so often fall into the hands of stock promoters and lose their focus.....one reason why a success story like Scaled Composites is so rare....from homebuilts to space ships....gotta love that!
__________________
Perry Y.
RV-9a - SOLD!....
Lake Country, BC
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.