Why are F1 engine clearances so small?

[flynfrog]

I agree that the aerodynamic performance of a wooden prop could be equalled by a composite prop.
I do not believe that this has yet been achieved and development is needed.

However, with all such applications it is not just one thing that needs to be addressed.

I have nosed over in light aircraft on two occasions. The first experience shattered the wooden prop, on the second I reacted quick enough to turn off the engine without serious damage.
The shattered wooden prop still required an engine strip down to check the internals.
All the internals were found to be serviceable.
A composite prop in this circumstance could easily have bent the crankshaft or other components.

There is no comparison between the high rpm compressor blades in turbofan engines and the low rpm airscrews used in light piston engined aircraft. The W116 is a pusher design with a maximum prop rpm of 4000.

Wood also absorbs vibration better than composite at thicker aerofoil sections.
Slight damage to a wooden prop is easily repaired, any damage to a composite requires replacement.

I will agree that the wood probably absorbs vibration better than a composite prop its probably heavier too. I don't really see much difference is saving an engine on prop strike. A carbon prop will fracture into a fuzzy tassel. Either way you will have to pull down the engine. I wonder with current tech how close a carbon prop will be cost wise.

[langwadt]

I agree that the aerodynamic performance of a wooden prop could be equalled by a composite prop.
I do not believe that this has yet been achieved and development is needed.

However, with all such applications it is not just one thing that needs to be addressed.

I have nosed over in light aircraft on two occasions. The first experience shattered the wooden prop, on the second I reacted quick enough to turn off the engine without serious damage.
The shattered wooden prop still required an engine strip down to check the internals.
All the internals were found to be serviceable.
A composite prop in this circumstance could easily have bent the crankshaft or other components.

There is no comparison between the high rpm compressor blades in turbofan engines and the low rpm airscrews used in light piston engined aircraft. The W116 is a pusher design with a maximum prop rpm of 4000.

Wood also absorbs vibration better than composite at thicker aerofoil sections.
Slight damage to a wooden prop is easily repaired, any damage to a composite requires replacement.

I would have thought there was some kind of mechanical "fuse" if prop strikes are something that happens with any regularity

The guys I know that spend half a car on a racing bicycle still use aluminium rims, with CF most damage requires replacement since it tends to fail catastrophically

[flynfrog]

I agree that the aerodynamic performance of a wooden prop could be equalled by a composite prop.
I do not believe that this has yet been achieved and development is needed.

However, with all such applications it is not just one thing that needs to be addressed.

I have nosed over in light aircraft on two occasions. The first experience shattered the wooden prop, on the second I reacted quick enough to turn off the engine without serious damage.
The shattered wooden prop still required an engine strip down to check the internals.
All the internals were found to be serviceable.
A composite prop in this circumstance could easily have bent the crankshaft or other components.

There is no comparison between the high rpm compressor blades in turbofan engines and the low rpm airscrews used in light piston engined aircraft. The W116 is a pusher design with a maximum prop rpm of 4000.

Wood also absorbs vibration better than composite at thicker aerofoil sections.
Slight damage to a wooden prop is easily repaired, any damage to a composite requires replacement.

I would have thought there was some kind of mechanical "fuse" if prop strikes are something that happens with any regularity

The guys I know that spend half a car on a racing bicycle still use aluminium rims, with CF most damage requires replacement since it tends to fail catastrophically

I cant name a single rider on the Tour that uses aluminum wheels in bike racing.

[langwadt]

I agree that the aerodynamic performance of a wooden prop could be equalled by a composite prop.
I do not believe that this has yet been achieved and development is needed.

However, with all such applications it is not just one thing that needs to be addressed.

I have nosed over in light aircraft on two occasions. The first experience shattered the wooden prop, on the second I reacted quick enough to turn off the engine without serious damage.
The shattered wooden prop still required an engine strip down to check the internals.
All the internals were found to be serviceable.
A composite prop in this circumstance could easily have bent the crankshaft or other components.

There is no comparison between the high rpm compressor blades in turbofan engines and the low rpm airscrews used in light piston engined aircraft. The W116 is a pusher design with a maximum prop rpm of 4000.

Wood also absorbs vibration better than composite at thicker aerofoil sections.
Slight damage to a wooden prop is easily repaired, any damage to a composite requires replacement.

I would have thought there was some kind of mechanical "fuse" if prop strikes are something that happens with any regularity

The guys I know that spend half a car on a racing bicycle still use aluminium rims, with CF most damage requires replacement since it tends to fail catastrophically

I cant name a single rider on the Tour that uses aluminum wheels in bike racing.

I wasn't clear, I'm talking amateurs, pros riding on the Tour is a bit different, they want the best of the best even you
need to trow it out if it gets a scratch and they usually have some equipment manufacturer as sponsor

[thisisatest]

Aamateur cyclists are more likely to have their damaged carbon parts repaired. It wad only a matter of time before qualified carbon repair services popped up, they are repairing frames with small gouges all the way to multiple complete breaks. Rims, bars, you name it. Prices are reasonable. It's to the point where carbon parts are the MOST repairable, other materials have to be trashed.

[riff_raff]

I would have thought there was some kind of mechanical "fuse" if prop strikes are something that happens with any regularity.........The guys I know that spend half a car on a racing bicycle still use aluminium rims, with CF most damage requires replacement since it tends to fail catastrophically

There is no "mechanical fuse" for aircraft propellor strikes. They simply bend, break or dent. The degree to which they do depends upon the density of the debris or surface that they impact.

Of course, your comments about the relative impact response of a metal structure versus a composite structure is quite valid. Metal structures tend to fail more gracefully than composite structures due to impacts. This is one reason that most high-speed aircraft still use metal leading edges on their wings.