X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.193] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 986923 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:34:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.233.162.193; envelope-from=wdleonard@gmail.com Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 34so5517nzf for ; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=E4JtILHkaOa4Xkw9HrBy1522xypA7Y0dW2YigkODP7q/HpOb4/LL+lvUquQMo/tZ1+xOasdUDJ860bjVCnDVhbxvrd/GcgQxhVmN9CNLKlZC7qm9en0FpY3qLoKPQ0NXgNfrdqsFhmOI23XcRZTRq4o20g1kWASxg+bnao5NXEY= Received: by 10.36.222.24 with SMTP id u24mr1078201nzg; Mon, 06 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.9.4 with HTTP; Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1c23473f050606213349e2c30b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 21:33:49 -0700 From: David Leonard Reply-To: David Leonard To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Un-touched engine (was: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_18279_13813988.1118118829203" References: ------=_Part_18279_13813988.1118118829203 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 6/6/05, Bill Dube wrote:=20 >=20 >=20 > > > >It is the case where the builder buys a 2nd gen 13B (now at least 15 > >years old) that I think an internal inspection or overhaul is called for > >unless you REALLY know the history of that particular engine . It also > >goes without saying (Ahh! there is a silly assumption!) that you either > >have, get, or borrow the required expertise in order to do this=20 > successfully. >=20 >=20 > As long as the walls and housings are not scored up, the seals > look good, the oil pressure is up to snuff, the compression is good, ther= e > is no sludge in the pan, and there is no metal in the oil, there is not a > lot to go wrong internally (with a rotary) that will knock you out of the > sky. Am I mistaken about this? >=20 > If I had a 3+ year old engine, I would not hesitate to tear it > down. However, I have an engine that is less than a year old. It is a=20 > horse > of a different color. >=20 > I have absolutely no problem with rebuilding the engine if it is > needed. (I'd really enjoy doing a rebuild, actually.) I have the tools an= d > experience to do it. My experience says, however, that an engine that is > relatively new, and is not abused or worn out, tends to have a lower > failure rate than one that you have just rebuilt. There are parts that=20 > have > an "infant mortality" that fail in the first few hours of operation. > Gaskets slip out of position during assembly. That pesky key in the oil > pump. These sort of "minor" problems are well-know by folks that have > rebuilt a few engines. >=20 > Bill Dube' Bill, I agree. If it runs and compression and other stuff are good, and it= =20 was fairly new. Little can go wrong that you wont find on the ground. If you can't trust a new engine, how can you trust a rebuild....=20 Having said that, my factory new engine (that I didn't rebuild originally)= =20 was rusted solid like Ian's. Meanwhile, I rebuilt my other engine (from a= =20 junkyard) and it was east and is running well. -=20 Dave Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/index.html http://members.aol.com/vp4skydoc/index.html ------=_Part_18279_13813988.1118118829203 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 6/6/05, B= ill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov= > wrote:

>
>It is the case w= here the builder buys a 2nd gen 13B  (now at least 15
>year= s old) that I think an internal inspection or overhaul is called for
>unless you REALLY know the history of that particular engine . = ; It also
>goes without saying (Ahh! there is a silly assumption= !) that you either
>have, get, or borrow the required expertise in or= der to do this successfully.


        As long as the = walls and housings are not scored up, the seals
look good, the oil press= ure is up to snuff, the compression is good, there
is no sludge in the p= an, and there is no metal in the oil, there is not a
lot to go wrong internally (with a rotary) that will knock you out of t= he
sky. Am I mistaken about this?

     &= nbsp;  If I had a 3+ year old engine, I would not hesitate to tea= r it
down. However, I have an engine that is less than a year old. It is= a horse
of a different color.

       =  I have absolutely no problem with rebuilding the engine if it is
n= eeded. (I'd really enjoy doing a rebuild, actually.) I have the tools andexperience to do it. My experience says, however, that an engine that is
relatively new, and is not abused or worn out, tends to have a lowerfailure rate than one that you have just rebuilt. There are parts that hav= e
an "infant mortality" that fail in the first few hours of op= eration.
Gaskets slip out of position during assembly. That pesky key in the oil=
pump. These sort of "minor" problems are well-know by folks t= hat have
rebuilt a few engines.

     &nb= sp;  Bill Dube'
 
Bill, I agree.  If it runs and compression and other stuff are go= od, and it was fairly new.  Little can go wrong that you wont find on = the ground.
 
If you can't trust a new engine, how can you trust a rebuild.... =
 
Having said that,  my factory new engine (that I didn't rebuild o= riginally) was rusted solid like Ian's.  Meanwhile, I rebuilt my other= engine (from a junkyard) and it was east and is running well.
------=_Part_18279_13813988.1118118829203--