X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1126597 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:44:01 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4OLhETh016686 for ; Wed, 24 May 2006 17:43:16 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000a01c67f7b$2a0a9780$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 17:43:58 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C67F59.A2974F80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C67F59.A2974F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageWe are certainly in agreement, Al. Substantial risk is involved = in any alternative engine roll-your-own. No doubt a proven FWF package = would mitigate the risk to a certain extent. =20 I agree that other than a seat-of-the-pants feel that my subsystem's are = robust (in the sense of avoiding failure), I have no quantitative = measure of my system's "safety Margin".=20 I know hot days, long taxi, and MogGas are combinations that move me = closer to that edge with my fuel system , so I try to avoid at least 1 = of the 3 if not all. So I am intrigued by your 0-10 scale. Clearly 10 = is tough (if not impossible) to achieve. Do you have one worked out = already for the fuel system (appears you do), how about our other = subsystems?=20 Would certainly be interesting for everyone to take the 0-10 exam on = their system and report the results of the assessment. Perhaps we might = find those above a 5 and give them some careful study. We do have a "Best Practices" Web site which does contain some of our = discovered "good ways" as well documentation of some of the "not good = ways". But, no quantitative assessment criteria that I am aware of. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: al p wick=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:52 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization 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.=20 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.=20 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.".=20 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.=20 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 -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 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. =20 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. =20 Even the Aviation Sport article supports that conclusion=20 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. =20 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? =20 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. =20 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.=20 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.=20 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. =20 Cheers, Rusty (T-minus about 53 hours until I'm back home) =20 PS, can't wait to hear how the 500HP Lancair flies! =20 -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 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C67F59.A2974F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
We are certainly in agreement, = Al. =20 Substantial risk is involved in any alternative engine = roll-your-own. =20 No doubt a proven FWF package would mitigate the risk to a certain = extent. =20
 
I agree that other than a = seat-of-the-pants=20 feel that my subsystem's are robust (in the sense of avoiding failure), = I have=20 no quantitative measure of my system's "safety = Margin". 
 
  I know hot days, long = taxi, and=20 MogGas are combinations that move me closer to that edge with my fuel = system ,=20 so I try to avoid at least  1 of the 3 if not all.  So I am = intrigued=20 by your 0-10 scale.  Clearly 10 is tough (if not impossible) to=20 achieve.  Do you have one worked out already for the fuel system = (appears=20 you do), how about our other subsystems? 
 
 Would certainly be = interesting for=20 everyone to take the 0-10 exam on their system and report the results of = the=20 assessment.  Perhaps we might find those above a 5 and give them = some=20 careful study.
 
We do have a "Best Practices" = Web site which=20 does contain some of our discovered "good ways" as well documentation of = some of=20 the "not good ways".  But, no quantitative assessment criteria that = I am=20 aware of.
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 al p = wick
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 = 10:52=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re:=20 Rationalization

As always, I'm so impressed with your ability to face the risks = Ed. That=20 is such a key item. I too pursue high risk activities and find it's = essential=20 to assume I will fail. This motivates me to seek my oversights, prove = systems=20 out 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=20 other engine system, you guys have your hands on a lot of different=20 components. That really increases risk. So if there were a few = standard=20 systems, risk would drop.
 
There is one very important characteristic that I seldom see = you=20 guys discuss. "How do I achieve safety margin?". Example: When I=20 build my fuel system, if it fails immediately, we would rate that = as a 0=20 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=20 unaffected by intense heat, like sitting on ramp at 120f for 4 hours.=20 Unaffected by use of ethanol. Unaffected by blown fuse. Etc. etc. This = concept=20 is to important. How far is your system from the failure point? Many = of you=20 are flying with fuel systems that rate a 3 on scale of 0 to 10. = Meaning it=20 often will work ok, but under certain conditions it will fail. Your = plane is=20 sitting right next to a guy who has a 10 fuel system, yet neither of = you are=20 aware. Both have good intentions, both want safety. Just totally = unaware.=20
 
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=20 fuel sys, exhaust sys, electrical sys, cooling sys, etc,  then = you are=20 half the way there. The other half of that solution involves how you = prove to=20 others that you have a 10. Most of us have NOT been exposed = to=20 success patterns. We are unaware of the need to add safety margin. We = build=20 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=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=20 and 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:
htt= p://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
On Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:46 -0400 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t;=20 writes:
I agree in part about the = reliability=20 FWF, Rusty.  However, if you read the accident reports, you = will find=20 that FWF reliability is just as bad a problem with Lycomings in = RVs. =20 Something like 20-30% of all homebuilt crashes happen during take = off and=20 are fuel related and as you know the vast majority are Lycoming=20 powered.  I don't know what our percentage would be but I would = bet in=20 the same ball park. 
 
I am aware of two fatalities = during=20 early stages of flight with Rotary's and a third one that occurred = with a=20 rotary powered RV years after its first flight and after several = hundred=20 hours of flight.  So that's three I am personally aware = of.  Last=20 time I counted there were something like 30+ rotary powered aircraft = (that I=20 could  find and that was several years ago), so even if there = were no=20 more than that number, that would put us in the 10% fatality = range. =20 Could be higher, could be lower, but I would say in the same ball = park as=20 the overall Homebuilt accident rate - NOT that is good by any=20 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=20 FWF 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=20 know do not always work out successfully.
 
We possibly could = standardize on a=20 "safe" 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.  
 
Hi = Ed,
 
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=20 years, and this needs to be the area we work = on.  Most of=20 it has been silly things, and I'm certainly ashamed for=20 my contribution to the problems. =20         
Even the Aviation Sport = article=20 supports 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, 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=20 rotary and produce a reasonably price FWF kit, I believe you would = find=20 the rotary installations would expand exponentially.  Most = folks are=20 understandably a bit daunted by the challenge of designing and=20  putting 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=20 would see the value of a rotary over the Subaru given the same = price, and=20 FWF 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 = (=20 <--- key word <g>) have a 2 and 3 rotor RV-8 to test = against=20 my Lycoming.   
 
Cheers,
Rusty (T-minus = about 53 hours=20 until I'm back=20 home)    
 
PS, can't wait to = hear how=20 the 500HP Lancair=20 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
= ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C67F59.A2974F80--