New pics on Eggenfellner site - Page 2

David-aviator · #11 03-10-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmcjetpilot

What is the long drive shaft, shroud and engine mount for?

I saw the set up 2 weeks ago when visiting the EGG factory.

It is to test a theory about a ducted pusher fan application. If the theory proves itselt, it will be an interesting airplane.

rv6ejguy · #12 03-11-2007, 12:15 PM

I'll retract my speculative comments earlier. Thanks for setting us straight David. Now that you mention it, I did read something to this effect last year somewhere...

jarhead · #13 03-19-2007, 03:45 PM

Interesting...

In the 2nd photo, the gear on the right looks a WHOLE LOT like the range-box gears in a 10-speed Fuller Roadranger heavy-truck transmission. Older model, too - note the single-row ball bearings installed, rather than the tapered-roller bearings used in the newer transmissions...

dlomheim · #14 03-19-2007, 07:16 PM

I wonder how much of the impetus to beef up the PSRU was due to the failure of the PSRU last year...no one wants MT props flying down taxiways since that can really be hazardous to everyone's health...

Doug
RV-9A, 90116; 13B

rodrv6 · #15 03-19-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlomheim

I wonder how much of the impetus to beef up the PSRU was due to the failure of the PSRU last year...no one wants MT props flying down taxiways since that can really be hazardous to everyone's health...

Doug
RV-9A, 90116; 13B

I don't think that had anything to do with it. The one that failed was a totally different belt driven design, as far as I know there has never been a failure of the original gear drive design. One of the main reasons for the redesign was to change the reduction ratio from 1.86:1 to 2.02:1 to get better power out of the H6.

David-aviator · #16 03-20-2007, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodrv6

I don't think that had anything to do with it. The one that failed was a totally different belt driven design, as far as I know there has never been a failure of the original gear drive design. One of the main reasons for the redesign was to change the reduction ratio from 1.86:1 to 2.02:1 to get better power out of the H6.

The belt drive test is over - it was 2.5:1 and did not work out.

Those of you receiving the new GEN 3 drive are lucky....it is beautifully machined and will provide for more HP with the H6. Also, no tubes for venting or oil level check. The unit is very cool. The cost of producing this version is not cheap....but it will be better.

I just had the GEN 2 drive upgraded even though there was no evidence of anything wrong with the original version. The guys installed new bearings which turn with less friction and should run cooler. It is still at 1.82:1 as this unit can not be upgraded to 2:1 or it would be changed. Perhaps when GEN 3 production catches up with new engine demand, I will spring for it.

I should be flying again in about 3 weeks after we return from Florida and our sod runway firms up.

osxuser · #17 03-20-2007, 05:44 PM

I keep wishing to see a hydraulic CS option come out on one of these redesigns... but apparently not to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by David-aviator

The belt drive test is over - it was 2.5:1 and did not work out.

Those of you receiving the new GEN 3 drive are lucky....it is beautifully machined and will provide for more HP with the H6. Also, no tubes for venting or oil level check. The unit is very cool. The cost of producing this version is not cheap....but it will be better.

I just had the GEN 2 drive upgraded even though there was no evidence of anything wrong with the original version. The guys installed new bearings which turn with less friction and should run cooler. It is still at 1.82:1 as this unit can not be upgraded to 2:1 or it would be changed. Perhaps when GEN 3 production catches up with new engine demand, I will spring for it.

I should be flying again in about 3 weeks after we return from Florida and our sod runway firms up.

gmcjetpilot · #18 03-20-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osxuser

I keep wishing to see a hydraulic CS option come out on one of these redesigns... but apparently not to be.

I am with you. That would be awesome. Why than?

Obvously its not impossible of course (*Mistral, the Swiss company with the rotary engine drive with the hollow wet hub and gov drive). The Vesta V8 drive has hyd prop govs and hubs for standard props.

Just because Lyc and TCM seem to make it look easy, my guess is its not so easy, especially when the drive is separate from the engine.

*What happened to them?

rv6ejguy · #19 03-20-2007, 07:47 PM

Heavy metal props are bad for TV. Heavy metal props make auto engine package- well- heavier. There are at least 4 electric props now in wide production which seem reliable. Other reason would be less than optimal blade designs fitted to packages which often turn less than 2700 rpm.

Seems a shame to hang some 60lb. club off the front of a silky smooth auto engine too.

No problem to make a redrive hydraulic prop compatible. Marcotte uses the OE PS pump for oil pressure, Several other drives have integrated oiling and governor pads. These are designed from the start for conventional C/S props, mostly in the above 300hp range.

People do not seem to be reporting a lot of problems with MT, Quinti electric props in service. Certainly hundreds of thousands of electric props worked just fine in WW2.

osxuser · #20 03-21-2007, 01:52 PM

I agree that a metal prop isn't the goal. I don't like the electric mechanism and slip ring setup on the current designs. I also don't like the slower response. Even Rotax uses the hydraulic system with their little MT composite prop on the Katana. Just one mans opinion, the hydraulic is better solution.