X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from m12.lax.untd.com ([64.136.30.75] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with SMTP id 1126164 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 24 May 2006 10:55:55 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.136.30.75; envelope-from=alwick@juno.com Received: from m12.lax.untd.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by m12.lax.untd.com with SMTP id AABCHJ67GAQATC4S for (sender ); Wed, 24 May 2006 07:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from alwick@juno.com) by m12.lax.untd.com (jqueuemail) id LQ549Q8T; Wed, 24 May 2006 07:53:52 PDT To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:52:46 -0700 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization Message-ID: <20060524.075251.3884.4.alwick@juno.com> X-Mailer: Juno 5.0.33 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_529c.7eb9.3ba7 X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 8-6,10-11,16-17,30-31,39-40,44-58,60,66-67,76-77,85-86,88-94,96-98,101-104,110-112,114-115,118-119,124-125,129-130,137-138,144-156,157-32767 From: al p wick X-ContentStamp: 14:7:3172216139 X-MAIL-INFO:29f3f3c76aea1e178b9e0fc7a30fae37634aca0fda135eaa6adaca4adab3dac3730a9a3af3fac7cbc78a6a93ae4e8e9317eace0adb976b9e1e7a8e0f7b477f7fdf57ee0223670a02e72a1f435e47431f37ae0b67833f873f43ba83caa77e3bba5e2787bbba337e8bcff7af4a0e033713abcb9adeca2aca6abffad38adf1a4af393935b734fcb2feac38e X-UNTD-OriginStamp: L941HVjjYzDhN3itp//mkOGqe0Vl8W3fJLTUvHJv7FE+DAhfqbGlOw== X-UNTD-Peer-Info: 127.0.0.1|localhost|m12.lax.untd.com|alwick@juno.com This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ----__JNP_000_529c.7eb9.3ba7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As always, I'm so impressed with your ability to face the risks Ed. That is such a key item. I too pursue high risk activities and find it's essential to assume I will fail. This motivates me to seek my oversights, prove systems out instead of assume they will work, etc. I agree there is great value to being able to standardize a few of the engine systems. Some sort of FWF package could achieve that. More than any other engine system, you guys have your hands on a lot of different components. That really increases risk. So if there were a few standard systems, risk would drop. There is one very important characteristic that I seldom see you guys discuss. "How do I achieve safety margin?". Example: When I build my fuel system, if it fails immediately, we would rate that as a 0 on scale of 1 to 10. But if it can't fail when I operate under extreme negative conditions, then it would be rated a 10. So a 10 is fuel system unaffected by intense heat, like sitting on ramp at 120f for 4 hours. Unaffected by use of ethanol. Unaffected by blown fuse. Etc. etc. This concept is to important. How far is your system from the failure point? Many of you are flying with fuel systems that rate a 3 on scale of 0 to 10. Meaning it often will work ok, but under certain conditions it will fail. Your plane is sitting right next to a guy who has a 10 fuel system, yet neither of you are aware. Both have good intentions, both want safety. Just totally unaware. A key item is finding ways to measure(using numbers, not speculations) how close your system is to failure. Then taking action to move it as far as possible toward a 10. If you had one guy doing this with fuel sys, exhaust sys, electrical sys, cooling sys, etc, then you are half the way there. The other half of that solution involves how you prove to others that you have a 10. Most of us have NOT been exposed to success patterns. We are unaware of the need to add safety margin. We build our fuel system, fire it up, then say "Yahoo, it works! I'm done.". I've had years of experience working will failure patterns, pursuing success patterns. I find it fascinating that all systems migrate to borderline failure point if we use our natural method of doing things. It takes effort and facts to build in safety margin. Off the soap box. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:46 -0400 "Ed Anderson" writes: I agree in part about the reliability FWF, Rusty. However, if you read the accident reports, you will find that FWF reliability is just as bad a problem with Lycomings in RVs. Something like 20-30% of all homebuilt crashes happen during take off and are fuel related and as you know the vast majority are Lycoming powered. I don't know what our percentage would be but I would bet in the same ball park. I am aware of two fatalities during early stages of flight with Rotary's and a third one that occurred with a rotary powered RV years after its first flight and after several hundred hours of flight. So that's three I am personally aware of. Last time I counted there were something like 30+ rotary powered aircraft (that I could find and that was several years ago), so even if there were no more than that number, that would put us in the 10% fatality range. Could be higher, could be lower, but I would say in the same ball park as the overall Homebuilt accident rate - NOT that is good by any stretch. I do agree that we need to do better in that area. However, as YOU know we are all experimenters - willing to try a different approaches. I think its very clear that should you follow Tracy's, Bill Eslicks, or (heaven forbid)even my approach - or any FWF configuration that has been proven over several hundred hours or more of flight - the odds are good you won't have a failure. But, being experimenters, we want to try out our own ideals or are forced by our FWF configuration to try a different approach - which as we all know do not always work out successfully. We possibly could standardize on a "safe" configuration - but then we would no longer be "experimenters" {:>) Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Russell Duffy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile However, I believe, there is plenty of objective evidence that says the rotary is comparable or better than the Lycoming in just about any aspect you want to consider. Hi Ed, I would agree with the above statement, but unfortunately, the one key area where the rotary clearly hasn't demonstrated superiority is "FWF reliability". The rotary group has had way too many failures in the past couple years, and this needs to be the area we work on. Most of it has been silly things, and I'm certainly ashamed for my contribution to the problems. Even the Aviation Sport article supports that conclusion Does anyone have an electronic copy of this article they could send me? I guess I'm the only one who hasn't read it. certainly cost less (even if you have to buy engine parts new), etc., etc. So no doubt there is some rationalization- but I'm not certain over what? I would argue cost, and have in the past. I would (actually have) bet real money that the $21k Lyclone I just installed on the RV-8 will work out to be cheaper than a rotary engine installation over the few years (at least) that I hope to fly this plane. This factors in resale of course. IF somebody would take the rotary and produce a reasonably price FWF kit, I believe you would find the rotary installations would expand exponentially. Most folks are understandably a bit daunted by the challenge of designing and putting that all together on their on. Amen brother!!! This is certainly what would need to happen. Powersport made a great engine installation, but at such a high price that not too many people bought it. If someone like Eggenfellner would make a rotary package, it would be expensive, but from a name that people know (whether they can spell it or not), and trust. I would certainly hope that people would see the value of a rotary over the Subaru given the same price, and FWF producer. Better get started on that article now :-) Actually, I was wondering if the rotary group could put together it's own fly-off between similar planes. It would have to be well documented, but we have enough engineers here to make sure of that. Heck, in the not too distant future, we should ( <--- key word ) have a 2 and 3 rotor RV-8 to test against my Lycoming. Cheers, Rusty (T-minus about 53 hours until I'm back home) PS, can't wait to hear how the 500HP Lancair flies! -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html ----__JNP_000_529c.7eb9.3ba7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
As always, I'm so impressed with your ability to face the risks Ed. = That is=20 such a key item. I too pursue high risk activities and find it's essential = to=20 assume I will fail. This motivates me to seek my oversights, prove systems = out=20 instead of assume they will work, etc.
 
I agree there is great value to being able to standardize a few of the= =20 engine systems. Some sort of FWF package could achieve that. More than any = other=20 engine system, you guys have your hands on a lot of different components. = That=20 really increases risk. So if there were a few standard systems, risk would = drop.=20
 
There is one very important characteristic that I seldom see you = guys=20 discuss. "How do I achieve safety margin?". Example: When I build = ;my=20 fuel system, if it fails immediately, we would rate that as a 0 on scale of= 1 to=20 10. But if it can't fail when I operate under extreme negative conditions, = then=20 it would be rated a 10. So a 10 is fuel system unaffected by intense heat, = like=20 sitting on ramp at 120f for 4 hours. Unaffected by use of ethanol. = Unaffected by=20 blown fuse. Etc. etc. This concept is to important. How far is your system = from=20 the failure point? Many of you are flying with fuel systems that rate a 3 = on=20 scale of 0 to 10. Meaning it often will work ok, but under certain = conditions it=20 will fail. Your plane is sitting right next to a guy who has a 10 fuel = system,=20 yet neither of you are aware. Both have good intentions, both want safety. = Just=20 totally unaware.
 
A key item is finding ways to measure(using numbers, not=20 speculations) how close your system is to failure. Then taking action = to=20 move it as far as possible toward a 10. If you had one guy doing this with = fuel=20 sys, exhaust sys, electrical sys, cooling sys, etc,  then you are half= the=20 way there. The other half of that solution involves how you prove to others= that=20 you have a 10. Most of us have NOT been exposed to success = patterns.=20 We are unaware of the need to add safety margin. We build our fuel system, = fire=20 it up, then say "Yahoo, it works! I'm done.".
 
I've had years of experience working will failure patterns, pursuing=20 success patterns. I find it fascinating that all systems migrate to = borderline=20 failure point if we use our natural method of doing things. It takes effort= and=20 facts to build in safety margin. Off the soap box.
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by= =20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
http:= //www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:46 -0400 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>= =20 writes:
I agree in part about the = reliability FWF,=20 Rusty.  However, if you read the accident reports, you will find = that FWF=20 reliability is just as bad a problem with Lycomings in RVs.  = Something=20 like 20-30% of all homebuilt crashes happen during take off and are fuel= =20 related and as you know the vast majority are Lycoming powered.  I = don't=20 know what our percentage would be but I would bet in the same ball=20 park. 
 
I am aware of two fatalities = during early=20 stages of flight with Rotary's and a third one that occurred with a = rotary=20 powered RV years after its first flight and after several hundred hours = of=20 flight.  So that's three I am personally aware of.  Last time I= =20 counted there were something like 30+ rotary powered aircraft (that I = could=20  find and that was several years ago), so even if there were no more= than=20 that number, that would put us in the 10% fatality range.  Could be= =20 higher, could be lower, but I would say in the same ball park as the = overall=20 Homebuilt accident rate - NOT that is good by any stretch.
 
I do agree that we need to do = better in=20 that area.  However, as YOU know we are all experimenters - willing = to=20 try a different approaches.  I think its very clear that should you= =20 follow Tracy's, Bill Eslicks, or (heaven forbid)even my approach - or any= FWF=20 configuration that has been proven over several hundred hours or more of= =20 flight - the odds are good you won't have a failure.  But, being=20 experimenters, we want to try out our own ideals or are forced by our FWF= =20 configuration to try a different approach  - which as we all know&= nbsp;do=20 not always work out successfully.
 
We possibly could standardize on = a "safe"=20 configuration - but then we would no longer be  "experimenters"=20 {:>)
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
= From:=20 Russell Duffy
To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:11= =20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re:=20 Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential=20 rotaryphile

However, I=20 believe,  there is plenty of objective evidence that says the= =20 rotary is comparable or better than the Lycoming in just about any = aspect=20 you want to consider.  
<= SPAN=20 class=3D117551421-22052006> 
<= SPAN=20 class=3D117551421-22052006>Hi Ed,
<= SPAN=20 class=3D117551421-22052006> 
<= SPAN=20 class=3D117551421-22052006>I would agree with the above statement,= but=20 unfortunately, the one key area where the rotary clearly hasn't=20 demonstrated superiority is "FWF reliability".  The = rotary=20 group has had way too many failures in the past couple = years,=20 and this needs to be the area we work on.  Most of it = has=20 been silly things, and I'm certainly ashamed for my = contribution=20 to the problems. =20         
Even the Aviation Sport article= supports=20 that conclusion 
 
Does=20 anyone have an electronic copy of this article they could send me? = ; I=20 guess I'm the only one who hasn't read it. 
 
certainly cost less (even= if you=20 have to buy engine parts new), etc., etc.   So no doubt there= is=20 some rationalization- but I'm not certain over what?   
 
I would argue cost,&= nbsp;and=20 have in the past.  I would (actually have) bet real money = that=20 the $21k Lyclone I just installed on the RV-8 will work out = to=20 be cheaper than a rotary engine installation over the few = years=20 (at least) that I hope to fly this plane.  This factors in resale = of=20 course.      
 
IF somebody would take = the rotary=20 and produce a reasonably price FWF kit, I believe you would find the = rotary=20 installations would expand exponentially.  Most folks are=20 understandably a bit daunted by the challenge of designing and  = putting=20 that all together on their on. 
 
Amen brother!!!  = This is=20 certainly what would need to happen.   Powersport made a = great=20 engine installation, but at such a high price that not too many people= =20 bought it.  If someone like Eggenfellner would make a rotary = package,=20 it would be expensive, but from a name that people know (whether they = can=20 spell it or not), and trust.  I would certainly hope that people = would=20 see the value of a rotary over the Subaru given the same price, and FWF= =20 producer. 
 
Better get started on = that=20 article now :-)  Actually, I was wondering if the rotary group = could=20 put together it's own fly-off between similar planes.  It = would=20 have to be well documented, but we have enough engineers here to make = sure=20 of that.  Heck, in the not too distant future, we should ( &= lt;---=20 key word <g>) have a 2 and 3 rotor RV-8 to test against my=20 Lycoming.   
 
Cheers,
Rusty (T-minus about = 53 hours=20 until I'm back=20 home)    
 
PS, can't wait to hear= how the=20 500HP Lancair flies!   
 
 

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in= =20 cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on=20 engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, = Risk=20 assessment, Glass panel design=20 info:
http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
----__JNP_000_529c.7eb9.3ba7--