Broken ej-22 crank pics

[Aussie_Paul]

I have been asked on the Oz forum for some pics of my broken ej-22 crankshaft from a few years ago.

At the moment until I get my pc sorted out I can't post pics on the Oz forum, so I will post them here and supply the link on the Oz forum. Ain't technology great!!!!!!! :D

Aussie Paul. :)

[Jerseywing]

No wonder it broke it's all rusty :D !!!

Have a great New Year

Mike

[birdy]

I woz think'n the same thing.
Paul,mate,your supposed to put the water where you'v been putt'n the oil and vise versa.

[GraemeMonro]

Lets draw some lines here. I may be from Vic like Paul but I am not from Ballarat, at least I know the difference between oil and water and where they go. Don't show us a photo of the inside of your fuel tank Paul, I'd hate to think.... :D
Thanks for encouraging my mate Keith the other day about training and testing his littlewing Paul. You will find him a top bloke.

[Aussie_Paul]

Looking forward to it Graeme.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

....after that I thought that I had better cut open my fuel tank!!!!! Is it supposed to look like this?????

Aussie Paul. :)

[Jerseywing]

I thought the water injection is supposed to happen after the carb. :confused:

[Harry_S.]

Paul:

That looks like my eyeballs, the morning after I was gassed.


Cheers :)

[automan1223]

Paul,

What year was that 2.2 ?

Did you have a harmonic balancer on the fron with the original pulley ? or some aftermarket speed part ?

What redrive or prop were you using ?

Jonathan

[Aussie_Paul]

...This was an original Raf set up with the belt drive. The front pulley is the same one used in the car.

The problem came we believe from the inadequate "steady" bearing set ups that Raf uses at the outer end of the drive sprocket to stop the crank from flexing. As Ken J. and other Raf people know the bearings frett into the alloy sprocket. A couple of thou is enough to flex the ej crnk to breaking point.

These days we remove some od the alloy and replace it by pressing an approx 1/16" steel sleeve for the bearing to press fit into.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chopper Reid]

Guys, save yourself the trouble of broken cranks, get in touch with mceagle and find out how he sets up Suby 2.2's. I have 1700 hours on my 2.2 and I know of another that had 3000 plus hours and Tim set both those up !! Something in the RAF set up is way out!!

[Aussie_Paul]

Brian, aren't you talking about Tim setting up ej-22's with a geabox?

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chopper Reid]

Yes, thats right Paul, it seems to me Tim's set up is pretty well trouble free to my knowledge.

[gyromike]

Yes, thats right Paul, it seems to me Tim's set up is pretty well trouble free to my knowledge.

Brian/Tim,

Do you have any more info on this setup?

[Friendly]

Yes, I would like to see more on this as well. Maybe start a thread on the set up. The EJ22 is really getting popular.

[Aussie_Paul]

.....a Rotax "C" 75 hp or the Hirth 100hp g/box will give a lot of trouble free operation. Maintenance with the Rotax box is probably a little higher but the mustering boys have put lots of hours up with the Rotax box.

I prefer the Hirth due to the ratio that allows me to run smaller diameter props. This way it easier for me to achieve closer to CLT stability without a machine 10' tall.

The Neil Hintz NZ Aeroflight 160hp g/box is suitable for the ej-22. Neil made the first box for me that could be mounted with the prop line under the engine crank line. The ratio is almost the same a the Hirth 2.25 to 1. Neil suplies them with the prop line up or down, as the fixed wing guys like the prop line higher so that they can fit the manifold etc under the cowling.

I sacrifice a little performance for that, but I feel for the recreational market that I am aiming for, it is the better option. The musterers like every bit of performance from their props. They have to because most of them run HTLmachines and so have wasted a lot of power to start with!!!! :eek:
This will probably start a s**t fight, but as one of the Oz posters has on the bottom of his posts "that to ignore the facts does not change the facts. :D !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Aussie Paul. :)

[Vance]

Paul, how does a high thrust line waste power? Thank you, Vance

[Aussie_Paul]

Vance, with the thrust line above the C of Mass there is a force that is pushing the nose of the aircract down. To keep the nose up and to stop the PPO force you either have a greater angle of attack on the rotor disc to have the resultant force pointing more towards the rear, a stabiliser providing the force by pushing the tail down, or a combination of both.

I consider that wasted energy.

When I went from an almost 11" offset with the Raf to a 1" offset with Hybrid I picked up approx 8 to 10 mph for the same propellor rpm.

It makes sense when you think about it.

Aussie Paul. :)

[StanFoster]

Paul: Just curious....when do you feel your Firebird will be on the market?

Are you still experimenting with different rotors? Have you tried Sportcopters by chance? I have honestly gained at least 10-11 by just changing my 24th generation rotor to the Sportcopters.

I wont be changing my thrustline on my RAF2000...but lets say I did....then the more efficient thrustline you are flying would really make this puppy flat out move. :D

I am sure your speeds are carefully documented for your own convincing the same as my logbook entries are still making me tickled that I bought my Sportcopter blades. I am sure you remember that it was your post on that cracked hubbar that made me switch. I feel I may have knee jerked reacted...but I knew I would not be flying with as much confidence with those blades. Now after the RAF factory is coming out with upgrades...I am really happy I changed. The performance increase was well worth it and was totally unexpected. Even though I had read that they would be better...I had to see it for myself.

Stan

[Vance]

Thank you Paul, That is quite a difference. I know you are very carefull with your documentation. That seems quite remarkable in light of your smaller prop. Thank you, Vance

[bones]

He He Paul, i have never said that a clt gyro wouldnt do the job or wouldnt do the job better and cheaper, i am lookin forward to putting Greg's butterfly through it paces at the Nationals, its just that to this point i am happy with what i have to do the job, that very well may change after the Nationals, and if it does as i have said to Greg i very well may order one while i'm there, the is the beauty and the pain of this style of flying there is so may variables.
I will leave it on this post too so everyone knows who Paul was talking about :))

[bones]

Paul i dont want a sh*t fight either and if it starts i'll just leave it, but can you please explain what you mean by this part of your post?
They have to because most of them run HTLmachines and so have wasted a lot of power to start with!!!!

[Chopper Reid]

Stan, those Sport copter blades look and sound teriffic but the price for us in Oz is pretty daunting. I read Ken Sandy Ego's results after fitting the SC's and he was wrapped !!

[Chopper Reid]

Gyromike and Friendly, I will alert Tim as he is the one with the technical info, I'm just a very pleased customer!!
I also hate to see 2.2's getting a bad name just because Raf have some problems in their set up.

[Aussie_Paul]

Mark, my post #18 explains my thoughts on the wasted energy. What I meant was that, a more efficient prop helps to over come the wasted energy from my explanation in post #18.

Clear as mud I think I made it!!!!! LOL

Vance, I still had the same 68" diameter prop as on the Raf. The guys with the 2.63 to 1 reduction of the Rotax gear box run up to 76" props. That is too long for my market, as it makes a machine very high.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Chopper Reid]

Makes the machine high Paul but does deliver lots of thrust! :) Also very importantly allows my gyro to cruise along at 3800 revs which gives a fuel consumption of 15.5 liters per hour.

[Vance]

Thank you Paul. What is wrong with high? I would think that how it performs would be more important than high? There must be something that I am not understanding. Is it a cultural thing? Thank you, Vance

[Doug Riley]

There's a confusion lurking here between straight-line forces and moments (torques). A straight-line force of a given magnitude will create a torque about any point that isn't right on the line of the force. For a given force, the amount of the torque depends entirely on the how far away from the line the point of interest is. Move this reference point farther away from the line of the frorce and the torque gets larger without any change in the force.

Example #1: Push with 50 lbs. on a 1-foot long torque wrench. You'll apply 50 ft.-lb. to the bolt. Now get a 2-foot torque wrench and push with the same 50 lb. You'll apply 100 ft.-lb. Push with 50 lb. right on the bolt itself, and you'll get 0 ft.-lb., even though you're still applying the same force.

Example #2: Imagine two boys on a seesaw. Say their total weight is 100 lb. If each of them sits out as far out on his side of the board as he can while still balancing the seesaw, how much weight force does the center support feel? Well, 100 lb, plus the weight of the board. If now they both move in to the center of the board, does the down-force on the support change? Nope -- obviously, it's still 100 lb., plus the weight of the board. The kids' weights haven't changed, only the moments that each of them creates by virtue of his location relative to our point of interest.

In a HTL machine, the engine applies X pounds of straight-line force to the frame somewhere above the CG. The machine experiences X pounds of thrust. It also experiences a moment tending to rotate the nose downward. Meanwhile, the rotor applies a straight-line force equalling Y pounds of up-and-back thrust. In the HTL machine, this Y thrust is applied ahead of the CG, creating a nose-up moment as well as straight-line lift. The nose-up moment is NOT created by the rotor's making some "extra" force, it's simply a by-product of the position of the rotor's thrust line. In effect, the moment is "free."

Now put the same rotor and engine on a CLT frame of the same weight. Both the rotor and the engine will generate exactly the same straight-line forces as before (X and Y, respectively). The only difference is that, by virtue of their POSITIONS relative to the CG, these X and Y forces don't create moments as a by-product. We've moved the kids to the center of the board.

In switching to CLT, you may get a bit of reduction of parasite drag because you put the pilot right in front of the engine instead of below it. You've reduced frontal area.

A gyro that achieves pitch stability by countering a high thrust line with a powerful down-loaded HS DOES lose efficiency compared to a CLT machine. In that case, there really IS an extra load in the verticla axis that the rotor must carry, not to mention the drag of the HS itself, which the engine must pull along. IOW, both X and Y go up in this type of setup.

[Vance]

Thank you Doug, that helps. It does leave the question about what is wrong with "high" unanswered though. Thank you, Vance

[Doug Riley]

"High" would be fine if the the balancing forces stayed reliably the same.

Carrying on the seesaw analogy, a HTL gyro with no HS is like playing on a seesaw with a kid who jumps off unexpectedly now and then. If you're the kid on the other end, you'll get smacked to the ground hard every time your playmate jumps off.

Rotor thrust is a playmate that jumps off the seesaw in certain flight conditions. Rotor thrust disappears in downdrafts as well as during intentional low-G maneuvers. This kind of unreliable playmate should be kept at the center of the seesaw where he won't upset things when he takes his jump.

IOW, rotor thrust is not a suitable force for centering the pitching moment caused by an off-center prop thrust line. Rotor thrust varies suddenly and dramatically. Every time it diminishes, the prop thrust threatens to flip the machine over in a PPO.

A HS is much more reliable than rotor thrust as a counter to off-center prop thrust. But better still is to have the prop thrust on-center. That way, you don't have to design a fix for your "problem" -- you simply get rid of the problem.

[Vance]

Thank you Doug, I don't think that you are speaking of the same "high" as Paul. For Paul it has something to do with "his reacreational Market." Thank you, Vance

[Aussie_Paul]

Ah, ok Vance. I mean physically high in the sense that people cannot get them into their garages etc.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

Doug, thanks for coming to my aid when I could not seem to explain myself in simple understandable terms.

I believe that I have a handle on what it is all about, but sometimes I can't express it in the written word!!!!!

Aussie Paul. :)

[Vance]

I am trying to understand, you use a small prop so that people can get it into their garage? How tall is your hybrid? My garage door is just a little over six feet. Thank you, Vance

[Aussie_Paul]

Doug, I have gotten a little lost here!!!!

In a HTL scenario of the thrust line 1' above the COM, a prop thrust of 500lbs, and no
h/stab, what counters/balances the 500 foot lbs of torque that is trying to rotate the nose down?

Aussie Paul. :)

[bones]

Paul first off sorry for some reason when i put that question to you your #18 wasnt on my puter, but i knew that was what you would have been getting at, so here is my next question to you, with a clt gyro is it going to use less energy, with full noise, hanging of the curve, slipping sideways ect, to stay slow enough as to not over run cattle, because i would probably guess that about 50-60% of the time that is how i'm flying and especially finishing off a paddock and close to holding paddocks/yards it is probably closer to 80-90% of the time?
I sure can see that there would be benifits in a gyro that was just used for recreational flying, as i said before so many variables..

[Aussie_Paul]

Vance, I don't use a small prop. I use the correct prop for the gear ratio to get the correct tip speed.

The larger the prop the more difficult it is to achieve CLT without the people having to "climb" up into the machine, aesthetics, the garage problem, height when on a trailer etc. That is where the marketing bit comes in. Safety first, followed by user friendliness and efficiencey juggled to make a "marketable" machine to as many people as possible.

Does that make sense?

Firebird height approx. 8' 2".

Width to the outside of the wheel pants 6' 10". We have to check trailer regs around the world to make sure that there is no problem trailering.

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

..."with a clt gyro is it going to use less energy," I say yes, but I am sure that Doug will answer that correctly for us. I have specifically asked him for that information in post #35. :confused:

Aussie Paul. :)

[Vance]

thank you Paul, it kind of makes sense. Isn't a small prop less efficent? thank you. Vance

[Aussie_Paul]

.....Makes the machine high Paul but does deliver lots of thrust! Also very importantly allows my gyro to cruise along at 3800 revs which gives a fuel consumption of 15.5 liters per hour.

Ok Brian, that fuel burn is interesting. I carry 2 people, with the gross weights between 1130 lbs and 1200 lbs, and use 19 to 21 liters per hour at engine rpm of approx 4600.

When flying solo my fuel burn is down around the 13 to 15 liters per hour at engine rpm of approx 4200. My LED mixture readout still has it running just a little rich, but I prefer that to blowing the engine. Fuel is cheap really!!!! compared to engine rebuilds!!!!! LOL :D

Yours seems to be thirsty compared to mine. :rolleyes: I believe that you have the Rotax box on the ej-22 with the car ecu?

Just for interest sake, how about a few more details, like rotor dia, empty weight, how skinny you are, fuel capacity, prop specs etc.
How about a pic to post?

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

For sure Vance, that is one of the problems when configuring a pusher. 'Really need to do what Ken R has done and have twin tail booms, but then you have the prop in the dirt!!!!!

Everything is a compromise with safety first followed by juggling the use friendliness and efficiency, to have a machine that people want to fall in love with and buy!!!! I am sure most Rafs have been sold due to looks. It is certainly not anything to do with safety. That is my challenge, to do what Raf have done but with a stable and safe machine. I don't want to be the "hot" topic on the forum in a few years time!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul. :)

Aussie Paul

[Vance]

Thank you Paul, If I understand you corectly, for each extra inch of prop diameter you have to raise the pilot a little over one half inch and raise the rotorhead one inch. Does this extra height of the pilot make it ugly? Is it the extra rotor height of the mast that is ugly? It clearly won't fit in most car garages. I know that you have put a lot of thought into what is marketable, so I am not disigreeing with you. I am trying to understand the path to your conclusions. I have flown the SparrowHawk and it didn't seem ugly to me. It has a high cabin and a 9foot 9 inch foot tall mast. That is 19 inches taller than the hybrid, yet I know that they don't have a 19 inch bigger prop. What am I missing? Thank you for your patience, Vance

[Doug Riley]

Paul: In response to #35: I know that you know the answer. The rotor thrust creates the counter-balancing torque. The rotor thrust is offset forward of the CG. The rotor thrust doesn't have to be any BIGGER, however; it's simply located farther forward than it would be in a CLT machine.

For some reason this basic fact of physics is hard to grasp: The same amount of rotor thrust can result in either (1) simply 1 "G" of lift and NO torque, or (2) an identical 1 "G" of lift PLUS as much torque as you want. The difference is merely a matter of positioning the thrust line. It doesn't take any more thrust or power to create the torque. You just slide the rotor thrust line forward.

It sounds like something for nothing, but it is not. Think about the seesaw and the torque wrench examples. In both of those cases, the same one or two forces produce more or less torque, depending solely on where the forces are applied to the object in question.

(I'm not advocating a HTL arrangement; it is, in fact, stupid. But we're all seekers of the unvarnished truth, eh?)

P.S: Here's another way to go at it. It seems that the rotor MUST make more force in order to "keep the nose up," right? But, while a high engine thrust line DOES try to push the nose "down" fom the pilot's point of view, this reaction is actually a rotational one. At the same time the nose is trying to go down, the tail is trying to go up and other parts of the gyro are trying to go backward or forward. There's no extra straight-line force in the up-down direction caused by the prop thrust; the prop thrust is pushing horizontally. Therefore, the rotor thrust doesn't have to be larger.

[Aussie_Paul]

Doug, would that mean that the rotor disc is now flying at an increased AoA to place the thrust vector further forward, and therefore requiring more prop thrust to push it along?

Aussie Paul. :)

[Aussie_Paul]

Vance if you put a Raf and a Sparrow Hawk side by side at the same money and had non gyro people looking at buying, they would chose the Raf almost every time.

Fortunately now more and more people are finding the correct information re safety. People with that info I would expect to take the Sparrow Hawk.

Then comes the Firebird/Sparrow Hawk appeal to the ignorent potential customers, and the informed potential customers!!!!!!!!!!!! That is of course based oln both aircraft as being as safe as one another. I am just trying to put the picture as to what turns potential buyers, with a heap of desposable income, and a mid life crisis!!!!!

I might as well aim for as much of that "mid life crisis" money as I can!!!! LOL

Aussie Paul.

[Doug Riley]

No, Paul. The rotor has to fly at whatever AOA allows it to make the amount of thrust needed to hold the gyro up in level flight. (If you increased the AOA it would climb.) It's the frame, not the rotor, that adjusts its flight angle in response to prop thrustline offset relative to CG. The adjustment comes about in the "angle of the dangle."

If the prop thrustline is very high, the frame hangs nose-low to get the CG aft of the rotor thrust line. (Old Air Commands, especially, are infamous for flying much more nose-low that the designer likely intended. You feel like you're standing on the nosewheel if you get one going fast enough. This is the frame sagging nose-low in order to get the CG back far enough for everything to balance out.) As Chuck B. has pointed out, this phenomenon is the same thing as loading your FW plane to a tailheavy condition.

[Vance]

Thank you Paul, so you are saying that the SparrowHawk is less attractive than the Raf, or your Firebird, but not ugly? Is it the tall mast ot the cabin height? I know a fellow who bought a SparrowHawk because it didn't look like an RAF and he could see it was safer. Taste is a subjective thing and mine tends to be a little off the mark.

When I sold Harleys, I liked Sporsters best, but people thought of Sporster as "a Girls bike" Next I liked FXRs and Harley discontinued them. I am always trying to understand and I appreciate your help. Thank you, Vance

[GyroRon]

For no reason I can understand, it seems some people like the look of a machine sitting as low to the ground as possible. The RAF is low to the ground - the cabin that is -

The Sparrowhawk sits up high on long gear legs. It also has a big tail and is just all together more stuff sitting out there to look at. To some people it is ugly.

You find the same stuff with fixed wings. Some people think high wings are ugly or just not desirable. Others like high wings and not low wings. Some people think if a plane is not a taildragger it is ugly and not manly to fly.... And there again others think a taildragger is too un-practical to be useful unless your a bush pilot flying out of the backwoods.

I think Paul is trying to keep his machine as low to the ground as possible to appeal to those who want a safer machine than a RAF but want that low rider look.

The tall machines only advantage is better handling and safety in flight. On the ground the low rider machines have far more advantages than a tall machine.... easier to put the blades on, easier to reach parts for service or inspection, may fit in a garage where others might not, possible better ground handling since it has a lower center of gravity, etc.....

I myself find beauty in the tall machines. The function over form that most tall machines have is what attracts me to them.

[Vance]

Thank you Ron, That is nicely put. Thank you, Vance

[Aussie_Paul]

.....about peoples likes and dislikes, :) but I disagree with your comment. The tall machines only advantage is better handling and safety in flight.. :eek:

My Firebird is/will be CLT with an effective stab, and meets/will meet the stick fixed stability tests as per Greg Grimmingers comments. That combination is as safe as any other gyroplane for flight safety. Hybrid has proved that for me. ;)

Aussie Paul. :)

[mceagle]

There seems to be a lot of confusion here with some trying to compare apples to oranges and bringing in too many variables. It would be more advantageous to stick to one of the variables and get the correct answer before introducing another into the equation.
For example there seems to be a pre conceived notion in this discussion that CLT means you must have a higher Gyro. This is incorrect and only confuses the issue for those trying to understand. In fact the whole gyro should remain the same external dimentions, it is only the C of G that is raised.
The only reasons I am aware of for having a taller Gyro is so that you can swing a longer prop or have more rotor to ground clearance - and this in itself is another variable that should be discussed separately on its own merits or disadvantages.

[GyroRon]

Pic # 1 is what I consider a low machine

Pic # 2 is what I consider a tall machine

Both are the same machine but one is IMHO much safer to fly than the other just by the design of the machine. Sure there is many other aspects you could debate over tall verses short, but I am saying I personally prefer the taller machine for it's safety, and at the same time agree with paul that the short machine is what most people would find much sexy or attractive or pretty or whatever you want to call it.

[Vance]

Thank you Ron, I feel that the tall machine looks graceful, like a tall woman with long legs, I feel like the short one looks like a clumsy brute. Sort of like the hunchback of Note dame. Like I said, my taste is a little off. Thank you, Vance

[GyroRon]

Vance I am with you.... I mean these things aren't go karts or meant for high speeds on the ground. Who cares if you got to step up into it? You got to step up into most all other aircraft. Think about what other airplanes, helicopters, hotair ballons etc.... that you don't have to step up into.... Beside older design gyroplanes and some ultralight airplanes, everything else is a step up to get in. Function over form!!!!

[Jerseywing]

If something is unruly or a handful to operate it doesn't matter how beautiful the lines are, it'll become ugly on you.. Look at the long raked hard tail choppers beautiful lines, look great, try riding one 4-500 miles in a day it'll be ugly real quick. Form over function is nice for some furniture, but when it comes to things mechanical ugly can be better. Besides as they say "Beauty Is In The Eyes Of The Beholder"

[Gordon Gibson]

Or better still, I like that one in the background of pic#1...the one wid' duh prop on the front!
The world needs more tractor gyro's.

By the way Ron, thanks for your excellent pics of your trip to Florida. Appreciate your time and efforts.

Thanks, Gordon Gibson NZ.

[WindRyder06]

Ron I wilth you on this... Shoot the Huey you had to step up to get into it and it was ugly to some but I loved the way she flew and looked.....LOL

[GyroRon]

Well Chris.... you know you had the worlds best looking gyro ever. But it wasn't a safe design. It had looks that could kill! ;) why not post a pic of it...

Gordon, your welcome. don't know if you knew it but the one in the background in that picture got crashed and is no more. Pilot landed it sideways and tipped it over.

[Aussie_Paul]

...In real terms, the lower you can keep the CoM for ground handling the better, and for safest flight have thrust line within 2" or 3" of the CoM with an effective stab.

A gyro can be designed to those specs quite easily. ;)

Aussie Paul. :)

[skyflea73]

Hi GyroRon,

Just giving you an update on the pit-bull gyro in the background. If this is the same pit-bull gyro (looks exactly the same) that my friend Ken Bricker purchased, it will be flying again by spring time. This will be his second gyro he has restored from the grave.

Darren Twellman

[GyroRon]

That is the one. Make sure he uses a better control system, real rudder pedals, a beefier rotorhead, and that he is very good flying taildragger airplanes. That sucker was a handful!!!!