Subject:
|
Re: Props for Hovercraft
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:29:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2245 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Ross Crawford writes:
> In lugnet.technic, Mark Haye writes:
> > Yes, I had tried that. I was unable to prevent all the rotation at the • friction pin,
> > and even a small amount of movement there caused significant wobble/binding.
>
> Well I did a little test, heres the pics:
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/RoscoHead/etc/prop/dcp_1409.jpg
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/RoscoHead/etc/prop/dcp_1410.jpg
> http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/RoscoHead/etc/prop/dcp_1411.jpg
>
> Note that the propeller shaft is cylindrical, not "x" axle-shape, so
> friction is much greater than standard axle.
>
> It worked reasonably well, even with no lubrication and old batteries. I
> reckon with some lube, and maybe even a more powerful motor, it would work
> really well.
>
> Oh, and running the axle vertically runs better than horizontally, so even
> better for hovercraft 8?)
Perhaps the z24-sandwich can be wrapped with conveyor chain links?
/Tobbe
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Props for Hovercraft
|
| (...) Well I did a little test, heres the pics: (URL) that the propeller shaft is cylindrical, not "x" axle-shape, so friction is much greater than standard axle. It worked reasonably well, even with no lubrication and old batteries. I reckon with (...) (22 years ago, 7-Feb-03, to lugnet.technic)
|
27 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
