F1technical.net

Mystery Steve wrote:

autogyro wrote:They do not need to use two thirds of their fossil fuel to reach altitude and although slower would be more direct and far more comfortable.

Far more comfortable? What does the wing structure have to do with cabin comfort? You still need to maintain a reasonable cross-sectional area of the cabin for minimizing drag. Comfort is relative depending on who you ask anyway...

[/quote]

I agree - within reason I'd much rather get there quickly than comfortably. Closely followed by cheaply. Modern airliners, with all their problems regarding pollution of various kinds, do meet this demand quite well.

I swear this is the last time, but there were a few comments I couldn't let go...

autogyro wrote: That aircraft has completed air to ground missile firing against tank Armour and would solve many of the problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do you care to elaborate how that would be any better in Iraq/Afghanistan?

autogyro wrote:...practically silent at altitudes up to 20,000ft...

Did you watch the video, it wasn't exactly quiet..? Most aircraft are relatively "silent" at 20000 feet, but at least when the aircraft are spotted on radar they can get out quickly. You may have a payload advantage on conventional helicopters though...

autogyro wrote:...costs no more than a police car so you could have over 5000 of them for the price of one silly Apache...

How much does a police car cost in Britain?

autoyro wrote:...let the yanks keep using million dollar short endurance aircraft to blow million dollar holes in the sand while the Taliban look on in amusement.

Yes, our political system is terrible and our military does think it's job is to police the entire world. It's a cultural problem from top to bottom.

He really likes autogyros, and dismantling his post line by line is like trying to carry on 6 different conversations at once with someone. It puts people on the defensive, and if they are argumentative, they will argue.

There was more than once I was goaded into a flame war here, but I have found that responding to the post as whole helps, and leaves room for discussion, not nitpicking.

I have also found when you "can't" let a few comments go, it is usually better to actually let them go.

His reasons are sound, and I don't think he needs to defend why he likes them.

He has enough trouble trying to convince us about the transmission for obvious reasons. That NDA/confidentiality is a real bitch. I am under an umbrella of three of them for the rest of my life.

autogyro, seems like this aircraft is the UK equivalent to the CDN Avro Arrow. Brilliant delta wing design ahead of its time, scrapped, and all parts destroyed.

Sad.

So you ever plan to sell your design, or to market it?

Ohhh, good thread. AG.. what little credibility you may have had is quickly evaporating with the Brit vs. Yank thing.

Yes of course, the world passed up this brilliant British flying machine concept for 50 years for no other reason than to be silly and ignorant. Just like now, despite that you've shown your brilliant gearbox design to "top engineers" no one has any interest in actually making it.

Funny how that all works.

Well this thread has changed a bit since I last looked. WTF...

Special isn't the right word.

Jersey Tom wrote:Ohhh, good thread. AG.. what little credibility you may have had is quickly evaporating with the Brit vs. Yank thing.

Yes of course, the world passed up this brilliant British flying machine concept for 50 years for no other reason than to be silly and ignorant. Just like now, despite that you've shown your brilliant gearbox design to "top engineers" no one has any interest in actually making it.

Funny how that all works.

I am glad you can see all the silliness and ignorance, it is obvious really.
There is no Brits vs Yank thing, there never was.
I remember the American Cruiser coming into Gibraltar and signaling 'Hi from the biggest navy in the world'. A little RN mine sweeper ran up a simple flag signal, 'hello from the best'.

Hi mystery Steve.
I was not suggesting a modern version of the rotodyne for Iraq Afghanistan, although it would work much better there than current helos.
I was suggesting a tiny 60hp autogyro, that has already been proven in all the roles stated and would allow our troops on the ground to consolidate the area involved, which is vast, instead of wasting a fortune blowing holes in the sand.
Common sense is way to much to ask though.

OT - Rotodyne photos ...interesting, especially the videoclip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9633v6U0wo



History http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng ... todyne.php

autogyro,

If you wish to call bu--sh-t on anyone please take the time to access all the facts first, otherwise it just sounds like sour grapes.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like sour grapes. Just poking a little fun at your secrecy. However, don't tell me I haven't "taken the time to access all the facts first", because it's you that won't present all of the facts.

But I'll take the facts that you have presented me with to estimate the gear volume requirement. You stated the following:

A) At least one of the gear faces is 12mm (.47 inch) wide.
B) The gears in the unit are directly comparable to current gears in use for the purpose.

Based on your statements, we can draw the following conclusions: F1 gearboxes (universally) use carburized, alloy steel, external spur gears for the primary meshes. And since, by definition, gears must always be used in pairs, we can assume that your system has at least one set of external spur gears.

The highest quality, carburized, alloy steel spur gear mesh with a 12mm face width, would be capable of sustaining a pitch line tangential force of no more than 2300 lbs for the fatigue life requirements in an F1 transmission. The max instantaneous torque output of a current F1 engine is somewhere around 350 ft-lbs at the crank, which means the primary shaft gear (ie. the driving gear) would need to have a pitch diameter of at least 3.65 inches in order to have adequate fatigue life (even for a very limited-life F1 transmission). And since there must be a pair of gears, the minimum dimension of your device would be greater than 7.3 inches (185mm) in at least one direction. This is about 68% greater than what you claim.

Care to restate any of your claims? Or have I missed something?

Best regards,
Terry

riff_raff wrote:autogyro,

If you wish to call bu--sh-t on anyone please take the time to access all the facts first, otherwise it just sounds like sour grapes.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like sour grapes. Just poking a little fun at your secrecy. However, don't tell me I haven't "taken the time to access all the facts first", because it's you that won't present all of the facts.

But I'll take the facts that you have presented me with to estimate the gear volume requirement. You stated the following:

A) At least one of the gear faces is 12mm (.47 inch) wide.
B) The gears in the unit are directly comparable to current gears in use for the purpose.

Based on your statements, we can draw the following conclusions: F1 gearboxes (universally) use carburized, alloy steel, external spur gears for the primary meshes. And since, by definition, gears must always be used in pairs, we can assume that your system has at least one set of external spur gears.

The highest quality, carburized, alloy steel spur gear mesh with a 12mm face width, would be capable of sustaining a pitch line tangential force of no more than 2300 lbs for the fatigue life requirements in an F1 transmission. The max instantaneous torque output of a current F1 engine is somewhere around 350 ft-lbs at the crank, which means the primary shaft gear (ie. the driving gear) would need to have a pitch diameter of at least 3.65 inches in order to have adequate fatigue life (even for a very limited-life F1 transmission). And since there must be a pair of gears, the minimum dimension of your device would be greater than 7.3 inches (185mm) in at least one direction. This is about 68% greater than what you claim.

Care to restate any of your claims? Or have I missed something?

Best regards,
Terry

Who said each gear set had just two gears in mesh, I did not.
There are no pairs of gears.
You are also simply calculating the instantaneous torque output as 350 ft-ibs based on the torque capability and characteristics of a conventional layshaft, dog engagement, (so called but not in fact, seamless) gearbox. The position on the gear train to measure the instantaneous torque capability on the ESERU would be at the tires as their is no clutch and constantly variable torque positive shifts.
Thank you for further confirming the potential.
More please.

autogyro wrote:You are also simply calculating the instantaneous torque output as 350 ft-ibs based on the torque capability and characteristics of a conventional layshaft, dog engagement, (so called but not in fact, seamless) gearbox. The position on the gear train to measure the instantaneous torque capability on the ESERU would be at the tires as their is no clutch and constantly variable torque positive shifts.
Thank you for further confirming the potential.
More please.

Hm? Shouldn't matter. Torque is torque, reductions are reductions. Ultimately, your mystery box is going to have to withstand peak input torque from the engine on one end, and peak output torque on the other. The engine isn't going to change its peak torque output based on what load you put on it.. standard gearbox or not.

Let's say the engine does deliver 350 ft-lbf peak.

If I remember right that's at least a 12 or 13:1 overall reduction from the crank at the lower speeds, or about 4500 ft-lbf of output torque.

In any event I'm still waiting to hear how much your magic box would cost to fabricate, on the mechanical side. Say for a single prototype.

Jersey Tom wrote:

autogyro wrote:You are also simply calculating the instantaneous torque output as 350 ft-ibs based on the torque capability and characteristics of a conventional layshaft, dog engagement, (so called but not in fact, seamless) gearbox. The position on the gear train to measure the instantaneous torque capability on the ESERU would be at the tires as their is no clutch and constantly variable torque positive shifts.
Thank you for further confirming the potential.
More please.

Hm? Shouldn't matter. Torque is torque, reductions are reductions. Ultimately, your mystery box is going to have to withstand peak input torque from the engine on one end, and peak output torque on the other. The engine isn't going to change its peak torque output based on what load you put on it.. standard gearbox or not.

Let's say the engine does deliver 350 ft-lbf peak.


If I remember right that's at least a 12 or 13:1 overall reduction from the crank at the lower speeds, or about 4500 ft-lbf of output torque.

In any event I'm still waiting to hear how much your magic box would cost to fabricate, on the mechanical side. Say for a single prototype.

Potential peak output torque, calculated from maximum input torque from the engine, using gear ratios, is never present, in a vehicle of set weight and a restricted tire size and grip capability.
One of the first real world things I learned about gearbox technology.

Can a computer calculate it?

It would cost about the same as a current gearbox plus a lot of development time and kit.
Computer simulation would be very useful, if you can answer your own question above, accurately on a test case vehicle, without using a dynomometer and building in tire slip, you could save me a lot of testing.