Al W wrote:>
 
> Here's an excellent example. I've seen people describe their
> reasoning
> for going rotary. Often I would hear: "It only has three moving
> parts,
> therefore it's safer". I suspect that 80% of you believed that. That
> is a
> gross error in perspective. No maybe, it's a huge distortion. It's
> a
> wonderful theory, it has a component of truth in it, but totally
> fails
> the tests for significance. If a logical theory is not significant,
> you
> dump the theory.
--------------------------------------------------------

Have stayed out of this as long as I can, but it seems strange to me as a
gas turbine designer of 33 years that Al would make this comment without
at least backing his words up a bit. I find it hard to believe that a
modern technology reciprocating engine that is snapping pistons back and
forth at 5000 rpm with cams and valves  is anywhere as safe as a rotary.
If the modern tech recip requires a PSRU and the addition of water
cooling those things components are canceling.
Having participated in many FEMA studies over the years ,I find some of
Al's comments a bit strange. His heart may be in the right place to try
to help us Rotorheads, but am not convinced he is helping us sort out
what is important to take care of to eliminate failures.

Will never forget my intro to rotary's. A friend at work raced a rotary
powered car. He took the car to the Daytona 24 hour without detuning and
after returning he left the car on the trailer and went to miami next
week without any additional work. This was a totally different story from
the recip guys. They installed very expensive forged lightweight parts
and deturned the engine. After the race they replaced all of them before
the next event. Does that say something to you about the robustness of
the rotary? Does to me and is one of the big reasons I am flying one
today.

Bernie Kerr, 40 hours on 13B powered RV9A,

PS. Do I feel as comfortable with the 9A as I did when I sold the
Lycoming powered 6A ?  Not Yet!
>
>