Hi Barrett,
One significant factor, regardless of which end it's being driven from, is
that the torsional loads imposed on the crank in an automotive application
are vastly smaller than those imposed by a propellor spinning at 3000 rpm.
I know there is plenty of experience in the VW world as to the pros and
cons of driving the prop from one end or the other. I suspect the same
factors would apply to Corvairs, except probably more so due to the longer
crank.
They're clearly getting better, but Corvair engines are still very much at
the experimental end of the spectrum - with a capital E! For some people
the experimentation is why they do it. Fortunately for me, some of the
benefits of the Corvair (parts availability, low cost, etc.) don't apply in
Oz since they were never sold here, so I'm not tempted to follow that path.
Cheers,
Tony King
Queensland Australia
On 27 December 2011 11:28, Barrett wrote:
> Ever since I have given real thought to using a Corvair engine in my
> project
> and looking thru everything about them that I can find, I've had one really
> burning question that I have WANTED to ask, and haven't. In light of Mark's
> 3rd engine failure, I just HAVE to ask this question now-
>
> Q:-Why is everyone attaching the prop to the wrong end of the engine? The
> engine was obviously meant to "drive" the transmission (in the car) from
> the
> other end. The crankshaft was designed to impart it's forces towards the
> back of the engine, not the front. The crankshaft was designed to run a few
> rather light accessories on the front, but the real work is out the read of
> the engine.
> Q:-Has anyone used the other end to power a prop?
> Q:-Are we trying to go "in" thru the "out" door?
>
> I guess it was fate or whatever, but as soon as I made my post today about
> having picked up my two Corvair engines today, then Mark posted about his
> third broken crank. I had been looking closely at using an O-235 engine
> instead, but after listening to all the pro's and con's, I passed on the
> O-235 engines and someone else got them. Had I known about Mark's engine 2
> weeks ago, I might have had the 0-235 engines instead of the Corvair
> engines.
>
> Marks point about maybe getting someone to manufacture a crank for the
> 'Vair
> engine is a good and valid one, and I think is one that should be looked
> into. On the other hand- IF SOMEONE developed an adapter to run the prop
> from the other end of the crank, wouldn't this be essentially the same
> thing?
>
> OK-OKI will admit to being "new" to the use of a Corvair engine in a
> plane and new to the list. I'm sure this topic has already come up at least
> once before, but may I ask to be humored on this topic and bring it up for
> a
> discussion? I mean all of our lives depend on this, so it seems it would be
> a viable topic?? Oh yeahI am "new" to Corvair engines in aircraft, but
> I
> have a WHOLE LOT of experience in building (high powered supercharged)
> Corvette engines, so I'm not an engine dynamics dummy.
>
> -Barrett
> (Shields raised and awaiting incoming fire! :-)
>
> +++
> I've got a flying story for you, but I'm not sure if it'll be
> inspirational!
>
> If nothing else though, it shows how lots of deadstick landing practice
> (and
>
> prior experience) can pay off . See http://www.n56ml.com/corvair/break3/
> for the details. My apologies in advance for the disconcerting content.
> No
>
> condolences required...I'm over it.
>
> Again, my apologies to the Corvair Community...
>
> Mark Langford
> ML at N56ML.com
> website at http://www.N56ML.com
>
>
> ___
> Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
> to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
> please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
>
