Im sorry I didnt answer a previous question as far as price, I'm tring to keep this option the same or close to the same as the RX-1 adapter and gearbox price which is around $3000 depending on how much the C-gearbox costs. Here is a front view at the mounted angle to engine.
Here is the solid works rendering of the completed integral APEX gearbox. I have to do a bunch of testing before I offer any for sale. I'm not taking any deposits until I prove it works well and get some flight testing in. I'm going to be doing initial testing without a clutch to see how it starts and stops. The initial ratio is 3.11:1.
Greg, I talked to you on the phone one time and that was to try to get Jodys Skytrax adapter to work with your one way clutch and your clutch wouldnt work purely dimensionaly. I could of went online and posted to everywhere that looky here everyone his stuff doesnt work it was dimensional incorrect but i didnt just because i figured you werent familar with my adapter and you needed to work out the bugs. Now looking back on this situation thats exactly what you would have done. We never discussed all the things that you supposedly "taught" me. I shared with you my plans for the future (Apex gearbox) and some of my thoughts and you shared some of your insights. I kind of that at the time that we were sharing knowledge to collectively make this yamaha redrive thing better for everbody. Now that you have out right lied about multiple things on our correspondence among other things i will never talk with you on the phone or work with you to solve somones redrive problems. I am reluctant to do this because everone suffers but I can not allow you to slander my reputation and not for fear that i wont sell somthing to someone. I have met so many great people just making these little parts as a side hobby and there is no reason that someone should make up such things about me. You have allready started talking bad things on my new Apex gearbox and i havent even started the testing phase yet. I have high hopes for it but who knows testing could reveal all kinds of flaws and i could end up with a pile of scrap for the metal bin but one things for certain I wont be offering any for sale until i prove that they are a good alternatve. I am very interested in who had any failures of my adapters. To my knowledge there has been none with the exception of a oil weep on a few adapters and I am aware of one rotax c gearbox bearing failure (Steve Henry) that happened after 100 hours and it was not catostrphic he noticed excessive play in the clutch drum on preflight. We attributed this failure to the type of lubrication used and possible damage during a gear change out. He is now up to about 350 hours many of which flying at wot during competitions and 180 hp for take offs using nitrous. I am aware of his rubber rotax hardy disk coming apart but thats not to say one cant use the these ive used one my plane for over 200 hours now with no issues. Plus that is not a catostrophic failure either since the c box is design to eject the rubber pieces out the large holes in the side and continue to drive the 2 couplings by direct contact. I am not making any claims that this setup will go for thousands of hours because its an unkown and I am unwilling to make up fake facts but at this time but it seems to be working pretty good so far. I would be happy to discuss any and all failures that you know here on this forum. We owe it to anybuilder considering one of our PSRU options. I however wont get in a debate with you on your skewed engineering data. I hardly have enough time as it and i dont want to use what little i have in negative arguments its not productive for anybody.
This is very cool. I've never used this before. I used to grind and fit and grind and fit etc. until bought a JD squared beast. Thanks for sharing your progress Brett, new and experienced builders will benefit from your build.
The reason I built the one piece adapter instead of stacking components on top of the orginal case cover is because I was concerned about maintaing concentricity between the gearbox and the engine output shaft. As on the adapter that Todd was making for the 3 cylinder engine. A one piece billet design also has more rigidity then a stacked component design and thats not my opinion its fact. The stacked design relies on the bolt tension to maintain rigidity. I chose the Rotax C gearbox because of it long reputation with using it on alternate engines. I personally built a turbo charged Honda long Ez and used a C gearbox. I flew it for 400 hours before I sold it. I couldnt find anybody that had gearbox failures because they couldnt handle the power i however did find 2 occurances of C gearbox failures because the adapter did not hold the gearbox rigid to the engine and the alignment got off (concentricity). Steve Henry did have a bearing failure with the c box and my adapter but after further investigation it appears it might have been a damaged bearing. He has over 150 hours sInce then on A c gearbox now flying with 180hp on take off using nitrous. As far as the Rk400 clutch Im not sure why someone would need to tear it down every 75 hours. Where did this information come from?
Our Avid speed wing project flew great yestarday. just a quick flight around the pattern but initial numbers are impressive. need more test flights to validate climb rates and such but it looks really promising
What you dont see in this cut away view is an additional mount that bolts to the cylinder head utilizing the two existing 6mm bolts. This is for the torque moment i think that you are referring too. I am shifting focus to the Apex engine since I have a good solution for the RX1.
I'm glad you brought this to the attention of nlappos, In this particular case the engineers at Rotax are offering to use their product with or without this option and a fellow builder is just getting info on how others have removed this optional product.
I'm sorry I miss read the original posting about this being a 4 stroke engine. This must be from a seadoo spark. I am unfamiliar with those engines. they may have a internal water pump but mounting a gearbox may be a choir. But if it is a good engine it just takes 1 person to do the homework then we can all benefit. lets us know what you find.
Those engine should be inline twins similar to the 582 or 618 series. They pose many challenges to convert them for aircraft use. For starters unless it is a newer 4 stroke seadoo they do not have internal water pumps, they instead use the pulpulsion jet to pump lake water through the cooling system. They do not have mounting provisions for a gearbox so a adapter arrangement would have to be made. The cost of trying to convert would far exceed the cost of just buying a 618 set up. I converted a HONDA aquatrax engine for use in a Long EZ aircraft that worked really well but it was a lot of work. The out come was not a 90 horse 2 stroke though. Its was a 120 horse inline 4 cyl. 4 stroke that was turbo normalized. I could develop 120 hp past 18,000ft.
The pulses per rev Has nothing to do with the number of cyl. Or number of cycles it fires at. It is only the number of electric pulses the ignition or lighting coil puts out per rotation. I believe this engine uses the lighting coils pulses which is probably 6 lighting coils.
You can pick what ever pitch you want. Simply pick the gear ratio you want out of the 4 ratio's offered for the c-gearbox. They are 2.62, 3 , 3.47 and 4:1. Most are using the 3:1 but Steve Henry used the 3.47 for a bit. He said he got the best STOL performance with it. He said it felt like the same power as his big bore 912 when he injected the nitrous. As far as longevity of these higher RPM engines that is a yet to be determined. I dont think there is enough flying hours on them to giess at a TBO #.