X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3580040 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:14:57 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=MKPerry99@cfl.rr.com Received: from mikewp2fm7y988 ([72.188.80.223]) by cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com with SMTP id <20090414001418.SYDH4386.cdptpa-omta02.mail.rr.com@mikewp2fm7y988> for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:14:18 +0000 Message-ID: <2BFDD7E0B14241BEBBFF17BEF07A30BD@mikewp2fm7y988> From: "Mike Perry" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:14:16 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006D_01C9BC74.6B900A80" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C9BC74.6B900A80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Here is another to add to the list. "Water pump failure". At 18 hours = I noticed my water pump leaking through the weep hole. This was a slow leak that I would have to add = coolant after a two hour test flight. Since this was the original pump on my 1986 13B I figured it was well = past due considering it was 20 years old. When I bought the new one at the Mazda dealer the parts department = said they could only get rebuilds. =20 This last Saturday at 72 hours on the engine I took off for my second = test flight with a new IVO Magnum adjustable prop. Excellent acceleration and better rate of climb than = my home made composite prop. However, with the old prop and 2.17:1 PSRU I was never able to get much = over 5000 rpm. With the old=20 prop I would take off and climb to 1000 AGL then reduce power to let = temp cool down to below 200 degrees. It would hit about 220 in the climb. Oil temps have always been below = 190. At medium pitch on the IVO I was close to 6000 rpm and by the time I = reached pattern altitude on both the first and second flights it hit 230. On this second flight I did my = usual reduced power and let it cool down as I flew out to my test area over the sod farms. After 15 minutes = of flight time I set power to 5000 rpm and played with the prop control then worked my way up to 5500 rpm. At = this point I am 20 minutes into the flight when I notice my temps are back at 230. I reduce power to = 4000 rpm and check oil temp is still at 180-190. I turned back to the airport but the temp is still = climbing. Reduced power to 3500 and about=20 90 knots. GPS says 10 minute ETE and now the oil temp is at 200. =20 I got a straight in to Rwy 33 and when I cut the power on final I had = 260 on the water pump outlet sensor, which was probably just reading hot air and 230 on the pump inlet = sensor. Oil temp hit a hi of 230. The engine never missed a beat the whole time. When I got off the runway and shut = it down I had a trail of coolant behind me. I pulled the cowl off and had coolant all over the bottom = cowl where my over flow tube dumps out but no sign of hose or fitting failures. Sunday after letting it cool = overnight I swung the prop through and it still has good compression from the sound of it. I started to fill up my = expansion tank and after about 2 quarts of coolant I could hear it draining back into my drip pan. The coolant was = just running out the weep hole on the=20 water pump. I would like to know if anyone else has had problems with water pumps = and any comments. Mike Perry N981MP Long Ez http://www.tohoflyer.com/ ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Steitle=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:16 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings Dave,=20 I have decided to take Al's suggestion and limit the criteria for the = spreadsheet to basically include any in-flight system failure which = interrupts the planned flight and results in a premature landing. Based = on this, I will add #3 & #4 as well as the one resulting from a ruptured = coolant hose.=20 Mark S. On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:55 AM, David Leonard = wrote: Mark, And did you get these? Added by me and John Slade under the = wrong thread title: On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, John Slade = wrote: Here's a few for the list, Mark, 1. Stock turbo bearings collapsed & took out apex seal. Flew home at = reduced power. =20 2. Fuel filer (sinstered bronze) looked clean but was restricting = fuel flow. Flew home on other tank. =20 3. Bad / intermittent contact on ignition timing sensor made engine = run rough. Landed normally and repaired. =20 4. Turbo hose blew off on take-off. Returned to land at reduced = power. John=20 ------=20 =20 Been there, done that. (the blown-off intake hose) =20 Also: I have burned out 2 turbos. The first caused precautionary/urgent = landing at an airport pending shutting off fuel flow to the turbo. The = second, I flipped a turbo oil shut off switch and flew 1000NM to get = home. Had a fuel pump die in flight, switched to the other and kept = flying.(soft failure) I had a bad injector enable switch causing rough running during some = phase one flying (after major change)... landed normally=20 Forgot to re-connect fuel return line in engine bay after doing some = work. dumped a couple gallons of fuel onto the running engine until I = smelled gas and shut down the engine.. (never left the parking space - = but it could have been really bad. Cracked alternator mount bracket found on pre-flight during phase = one testing. Would have lost cooling and alternator if it happened now. PSRU sun gear pin broke from a backfire during run-up. Was able to = taxi back but would not have been able to fly. =20 This is good - broke a coolant line in flight and smelled coolant... = landed at nearby airport and taxied up to restaurant with steam spewing = out of the cowl. Me and my buddy calmly walked into the restaurant and = had breakfast. Afterward, we borrowed some tools and fixed the coolant = line. Went back into the restaurant to ask for 2 pitchers of water to = put in our plane. Continued ski trip to Mammoth. The end. --=20 David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Mark Steitle = wrote: Thanks Bill,=20 With the addition of Bill's exciting adventure, and one of my own, = we're up to 18 incidents in the database. These last two, along with = Ed's brake fire, and an oil coolant rupture, totals four incidents = involving fires during ground operations. Hopefully, everyone carries = at least one fire extinguisher in their airplane. Mark S.=20 On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill Schertz = wrote: One other thing to watch out for -- This occurred during ground = testing, but if it had happened in the air it would have been a forced = landing. From my post of Feb. 8 Well, I haven't heard of this happening before -- I was ground = running my engine to tune it with the EM-2 and EC-2. Ran for almost an = hour, at various rpm's to change the manifold pressure and tweak the = settings. Cooling working well, I had the top cowling off to allow good = exit area since I was tied down. Coolant pressure about 14 psi as = reported on the EM-2. Engine was running good, took it up to ~6000 rpm swinging a = 76x76 Catto prop, when suddenly there was steam and fluid on my = windshield. Shut it down by killing power to the EC-2. Coolant = everywhere. Got out and looked to diagnose the problem -- NOT my plumbing. = A FREEZE PLUG in the iron housing had blown out. Rapid coolant dump. Secondary effect -- Since I shut down suddenly from full tilt, = either the proximity of the cowl to the exhaust, or possibly some of the = coolant on the exhaust started a small fire on my cowl. Put it out with = extinguisher, but corner is charred. Now in repair mode. -------------------------- Update since this incident: All freeze plugs (7) on the engine = have been replaced by Bruce Turrentine, and he has inspected the engine. = I am currently reinstalling it and getting ready for more tuning = exercises. Bill Schertz KIS Cruiser #4045 N343BS ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Mark Steitle=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:51 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings Charlie, That's a very good point. I'm trying to stay away from = assigning a "cause" for whatever happened because I don't have all the = facts. I have a field that says "Explanation of Failure". Hopefully, = we can make statements as you suggest. Sometimes, even the FAA gets it = wrong, like the time they attributed the engine failure to the builder = removing the oil injection pump. Also, I doubt that we could all agree = on a "single cause" for each failure. Maybe it is due to a poor weld, = or wrong choice of material, or improper strain relief, or lack of heat = shielding, or a little of each. What I hope to accomplish is to point = out areas where we need to be more careful on how we design a particular = part or system. =20 List is at 16 now. Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy = night" story to the list? =20 Mark =20 On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charlie England = wrote: I think that it's just as important to understand the real = cause of the failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow sensor, it's = highly unlikely that use of the plastic sensor caused the failure; it = was the use of plastic in the wrong area without any protection. The = homebuilder's knee-jerk reaction is to say 'no plastic sensors because = that one melted', even though there are tens of thousands of the same = sensor in use in boating, a much more severe environment. Kind of like the canard builder who tried to put fuel in a = wing built with fuel-soluble foam. Obviously, it failed, but only = because of the wrong application of products, not the products = themselves. Charlie -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: al wick =20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:13:00 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings Absolutely excellent Mark. I'd encourage you to get the year = the incident occured too. That will be your proof of reduced risk from = things like this newsgroup.=20 Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not = forced. Because all things are shades of grey. Instead rate the = severity. So it's a 10 if the guy had to glide, it's a 1 if he did = precautionary landing. If you also explain what happened, then a reader = can easily tell you were objective in your rating.=20 The final piece is about how many flight hours, first = flights there were. Each year there are more engines flying, so way more = likely you will hear of incident. A wild assed guess is ok, if you just = base the guess on some facts. For example, you could check faa database = and find 100 planes registered with rotary engine in 2005. You can guess = that equals 70 hours each. Even though it's a wild assed guess, it will = still be excellent predictor of change over time. Each year you have the = same "error". So your numbers WILL reflect improvement. More important than anything. If you can force your self to = say: "That same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look = at "contributing factors". Then you can dramatically reduce personal = risk. Good example: We had that guy that installed plastic fuel flow = sensor in fuel line. It melted, he died. Tracy just reported hot exhaust = caused fuel to boil out of carb. These have the same root cause. You = don't want to say:" I have efi, can't happen to me". You want to say:" I = expect heat will cause a failure. I'll put a thin ss shield here, with a = bit of fibrefax glued to back. So if muffler fails, it won't = affect....." Every forced landing had 10 little incidents in the past = that preceded it. Your risk isn't some new cause. It's 1 of those 10 = incidents that you rationalized away, instead of saying:" that will = happen to me too." Good stuff. -al wick Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru 230+ hrs tt from Portland, Oregon ---------- Original Message ---------- From: Mark Steitle To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" = Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: = Rotary Engines Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:45:24 -0500 Mike,=20 Has anyone ever tried to document the rotary incidents = resulting in a forced landing? Here's what I recall from memory, so it likely is missing a = few; =20 3 forced landings due to ruptured oil coolers=20 1 forced landing due to apex seal coming out of its slot = (rotor out of spec) 1 forced landing due to improper assembly of engine = (seal wedged between rotor & side housing) 1 forced landing on highway due to catastrophic = overheating of engine 2 forced landings (one fatal) due to probable fuel = system design flaw =20 1 forced landing on highway due to ingestion of FOD. =20 There were a few others, such as turbo failures which = allowed for continued operation at reduced power, so we may or may not = wish to include those here. =20 While a number of these incidents date back quite a few = years, and we have made excellent progress, it says to me that we still = have room for improvement in the peripheral department. The good news = is that out of all of the incidents listed above, none of them were = caused by a true engine failure. That's where the rotary has really = earned my respect as a viable a/c engine. Pay attention to the details!=20 Mark S.=20 On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills = wrote: This has been an interesting thread. In the end, it doesnt = really matter how many "major" parts you have - even a minor failure can = bring you down. While I believe the basic rotary engine itself is more = fault tolerant than a recip, the peripherals used in the typical rotary = install are a lot more complex than a typical recip install. Since we = rotary fliers dont have the benefit of 70 years worth of experience = flying behind the typical LyCon farm implement I think overall our odds = are considerably worse. Comes down to how well an individual engineer's = his installation and there is a tremendous amount of variation here. The dependence on electronics in the typical rotary = install is a good example. I may be a little sensitive to this issue = since I've been trying to find an intermittent glitch (2 times in 22 = hours of engine testing). Mike Wills RV-4 N144MW =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: = Rotary Engines Good analysis and logic, Gary. You=92d make a good addition to the =93rotary = community=94. I have noticed over the 10 years I have been flying my = rotary powered RV-6A that the problems have decreased considerably, the = success rate and completion rate has gone up and first flights are now = occurring without significant problems =96 even cooling is OK {:>). I = believe most of this improvement can be attributed to folks sharing = their knowledge, problems and solutions with others - such as on this = list. =20 I know that fewer parts count is often touted as one of = the rotary benefit =96 and while it is true that the part count is = lower, the most significant thing (in my opinion) is not only does the = lower part count help reliability (if it is not there =96 it can not = break), but if you look a the design of the eccentric shaft (for = example) you notice the absence of the jogs in a typical crankshaft and = their stress points. The thing is over 3=94 in diameter at some points = and does not have the same inertia loads born by a piston crankshaft. = The parts that are there are of very robust design. Finally, the rotary = is (I believe) more tolerant of damage and tends to fail =93gradually = and gracefully=94, it can take a licking and keep on ticking as the old = saying goes. Only extended time and numbers will provide the true MTBF = for the rotary, but I believe it looks very promising. Failure of rotary engines are extremely rare, but = unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installations, auxiliary = subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off designs = have been the cause of most failures =96 with probably fuel the prime = culprit. The good news is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we = have pretty much established what will make an installation successful. = The Canard crowd is fast approaching that status with their somewhat = more challenging cooling requirements being over come. Having lost a rotor during flight due to putting in = high compression rotors with worn apex seal slots worn beyond specs = (found this out later =96 my fault for not being aware of this spec = limit and checking it) which led to apex seal failure and consequence = lost of most of the power from one rotor, I was still able to maintain = 6500 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture knob to full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH = =96 a lot of it undoubtedly being blown through the disabled rotor. = Flew it back 60 miles to a suitable runway and made a non-eventful = landing. There was a small increase in vibration due to the power = strokes no longer being balanced, but nothing bad and you could still = read the needles on the gauges. Other folks have had FOD damage to a = rotor and also make it to a safe landing. Two folks lost cooling (one = loss of coolant fluid , one lost of water pump) and while they did cook = the engines, both made it back to a safe landing. So all things = considered, I think the rotary continues to show that if the = installation is designed properly, it makes a very viable and reliable = aircraft power plant. Failure of rotary engines in aircraft are extremely = rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installations, = auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off = designs - have been the cause of most failures. The good news is that = for some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much established = what will make an installation successful. The Canard crowd is fast = approaching that status with their somewhat more challenging cooling = requirements being over come. My rotary installation cost me $6500 back in 1996, the = primary cost being a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU $2900. I have = since purchased a 1991 turbo block engine from Japan for $900 and = rebuilt it myself for another $2200. My radiators (GM evaporator cores) = cost $5.00 from the junk yard and another $50.00 each for having the = bungs welded on. So depending on how much you buy and how much you = build the price can vary considerably. Today, I would say it would take = a minimum of around $8000 and more nominally around $10000 for a = complete rotary installation in an RV =96 some folks could do it for = less, some for more. But, regardless of the technical merit (or not) in = someone=92s mind, the crucial thing (in my opinion) is you need to = address two personal factors: 1. What is your risk tolerance? It doesn=92t really = matter how sexy some =93exotic=94 engine installation may seem =96 if = you are not comfortable flying behind (or in front) of it, then it = certainly does not makes sense to go that route. After all, this is = supposed to have an element of fun and enjoyment to it. 2. What is your knowledge, experience and background = (and you don=92t have to be an engineer) and do you feel comfortable = with the level of involvement needed. So hope you continue to contribute to expanding our = knowledge and understanding of the rotary in its application to power = plant for aircraft. Best Regards Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ = http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------- From: Rotary motors in aircraft = [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Casey Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:36 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines Just to add a few more comments and answers to the = several excellent comments posted: How many parts does it take to make a rotary rotate? = Well, "parts aren't parts" in this case. Mark was right in that there = are maybe 4 "major" components, but you have to define major. A piston = engine certainly has far more major parts. Is a valve a "major" part? = I think so. Is a rotor corner button a major part? Not sure, but = probably not. Is each planet gear in the PSRU a major part? I say yes, = and the PSRU is an integral part of the rotary engine. As someone = correctly pointed out, it's not how many parts, but the reliability of = the total system that counts. Just looking at the history of the rotary = (which, from the implication of another post) it's not that good, but I = don't think it has anything to do with reliability of the concept. It's = more to do with the experimental nature of the builds and installations. = My original point, perhaps not well expressed is that to say there are = just 4 parts is an oversimplification. But let's face it, to put in an = engine that has had many thousands of identical predecessors is less = "experimental" than one that hasn't.. Are we ES drivers more conservative? Probably so, since = the ES is probably one of the experimentals most similar to production = aircraft, and not just because the Columbia (can't force myself to say = Cezzna :-) was a derivative. Therefore, it tends to attract = conservative builders and owners. Not surprising then that almost all = ES's have traditional powerplants, with the most excellent exception of = Mark. While there may be more, I know of only two off-airport landings = caused by engine failures in the ES in almost 20 years of experience. = One was caused by fuel starvation right after takeoff (fatal) and one = was caused by a PSRU failure in an auto engine conversion. So our = old-fashioned conservative nature has served us pretty well. Yes, I was assuming that the rotary had electronic fuel = injection and ignition, but that by itself doesn't change the inherent = fuel efficiency of the engine. Direct injection does have a potential = to improve BSFC because the fuel charge can be stratified. It will = probably decrease available power, though. I think the best rotary will = be 5% less efficient than the "best" piston engine(same refinements = added to each). But I stated that as a simple disadvantage - as Mark = pointed out, it isn't that simple. The rotary already comes configured = to run on auto gas. The piston engine can also be so configured, but = the compression ratio reduction would reduce its BSFC and maybe = durability advantage. The total operating cost is certainly = significantly less if auto gas can always be used to refuel. I assumed = in my assessment that it will only be available 50% of the time. The = real disadvantage, which I failed to state, is that the extra fuel = required for a given mission might be 5 or 10% higher and that negated = the weight advantage, if only for long-range flights. Is the engine less expensive? I did a thorough analysis = of a direct-drive recip auto engine installation and my conclusion was = that if the auto engine were equivalent in reliability to the aircraft = engine it would likely cost just as much. Is the same true of the = rotary? I'm not sure, but you have to consider the total cost, = including engineering of all the parts in the system, not just the core = engine. I would love to do a rotary installation, but I don't think I = could justify it by cost reduction. It wasn't mentioned in the posts, but some have claimed = the rotary is "smoother" than a recip. I at first resisted that notion. = Sure, any rotary given sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly = balanced. A 4-cylinder opposed recip is not - there is a significant = secondary couple. The 6-cylinder opposed engine is perfectly balanced, = but only for PRIMARY and SECONDARY forces and couples - higher order = forces have never really been analyzed, although they would be very = small. And then consider the forces within the engine that have to be = resisted by that long, heavy, but flexible crankshaft. So it isn't the = mechanical balance that gives the rotary an advantage. Let's take a = look at the the torsional pulsations, comparing the 3-rotor against the = 6-cylinder: A 6-cylinder engine has 3 power impulses per rotation, as = does the 3-rotor, so they are the same, right? Wrong. They both = incorporate 4 "stroke" cycles, meaning that there separate and = sequential intake, compression, power and exhaust events so that is the = same for both. The power event, which is the source of the torque = impulse, takes 1/2 of a crank rotation for the recip. In the rotary the = power event requires 1/4 of a ROTOR rotation, but the rotor rotates at = 1/3 crank rotation - the result is that the power impulse lasts 3/4 of a = CRANK rotation, 50% longer than in a recip. Therefore, the torsional = excitation delivered to the propeller, PSRU and to the airframe is = significantly less than for a recip. And if you analyze the actual = forces imparted, they go down by the square of the rpm. The torsional = vibration amplitude goes down by a factor of 4 just because the rpm of = the rotary turns about twice as fast. If you've skipped to the bottom = of the paragraph, as you probably should have :-), yes the rotary is = "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my apologies to rotary purists, for = simplicity I used the word "crankshaft" for both engines) But just because you can burn auto gas should you? The = biggest problems with auto gas in recip aircraft have nothing to do with = the engine, but with the high vapor pressure of the fuel - it is more = prone to vapor lock. The fuel systems of certified aircraft are not = particularly well designed with regard to vapor lock. "Fortunately", = rotary engines typically have no mechanical fuel pump and are forced to = rely on electric pumps. Fortunately because the pumps can be located at = the very bottom of the aircraft and close to the fuel tanks, making = vapor lock much less likely. I would caution any builders to consider = vapor lock possibilities very seriously, much more so if you intend to = run auto gas. when I was going to do this I planned to put one electric = pump in the wing root of each wing, feeding the engine directly(the = check valve in the non-running pump prevents back-feeding). Redundancy = was by a "crossfeed" line that could connect the tanks together. And thanks, Mark for - probably incorrectly - referring = to me as a "good engineer". I'll have to put that in my resume! Have a good day, Gary (do you allow us outsiders in your events? I'll park = well away :-) __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, = version of virus signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com/=20 --=20 David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com=20 Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.54/2056 - Release Date: = 04/13/09 05:51:00 ------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C9BC74.6B900A80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Here is another to add to the = list.  "Water=20 pump failure".  At 18 hours I noticed my water pump = leaking
through the weep hole.  This was a = slow leak=20 that I would have to add coolant after a two hour test = flight.
Since this was the original pump on my = 1986 13B I=20 figured it was well past due considering it was 20 years
old.  When I bought the new one at = the Mazda=20 dealer the parts department said they could only get
rebuilds.
 
This last Saturday at 72 hours on the = engine I took=20 off for my second test flight with a new IVO Magnum
adjustable prop.  Excellent = acceleration and=20 better rate of climb than my home made composite prop.
However, with the old prop and 2.17:1 = PSRU I was=20 never able to get much over 5000 rpm. With the old
prop I would take off and climb to 1000 = AGL then=20 reduce power to let temp cool down to below 200 degrees.
It would hit about 220 in the = climb.  Oil=20 temps have always been below 190.
 
At medium pitch on the IVO I was close = to 6000 rpm=20 and by the time I reached pattern altitude on both
the first and second flights it hit = 230.  On=20 this second flight I did my usual reduced power and let it=20 cool
down as I flew out to my test area over = the sod=20 farms. After 15 minutes of flight time I set power to 5000 = rpm
and played with the prop control then = worked my way=20 up to 5500 rpm.  At this point I am 20 minutes into
the flight when I notice my temps are = back at=20 230.  I reduce power to 4000 rpm and check oil temp is
still at 180-190.  I turned back = to the=20 airport but the temp is still climbing.  Reduced power to 3500 = and=20 about
90 knots.  GPS says 10 minute ETE = and now the=20 oil temp is at 200. 
 
I got a straight in to Rwy 33 and when = I cut the=20 power on final I had 260 on the water pump outlet sensor,
which was probably just reading hot air = and 230 on=20 the pump inlet sensor. Oil temp hit a hi of 230.  The = engine
never missed a beat the whole = time.  When I=20 got off the runway and shut it down I had a trail of = coolant
behind me.  I pulled the cowl off = and had=20 coolant all over the bottom cowl where my over flow tube dumps = out
but no sign of hose or fitting = failures. =20 Sunday after letting it cool overnight I swung the prop through and it=20 still
has good compression from the sound of = it.  I=20 started to fill up my expansion tank and after about 2 quarts = of
coolant I could hear it draining back = into my drip=20 pan.  The coolant was just running out the weep hole on the =
water pump.
 
I would like to know if anyone else has = had problems with water pumps and any comments.
 
Mike Perry
N981MP
Long Ez
 
 http://www.tohoflyer.com/
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark = Steitle=20
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 = 9:16=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced = landings

Dave,
 
I have decided to take Al's suggestion and limit the = criteria=20 for the spreadsheet to basically include any in-flight system failure = which=20 interrupts the planned flight and results in a premature = landing.  Based=20 on this, I will add #3 & #4 as well as the one resulting = from a=20 ruptured coolant hose. 
 
Mark S.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:55 AM, David = Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com> = wrote:
Mark, And did you get these?  Added by me and John Slade = under the=20 wrong thread title:


On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:15 PM, John Slade <jslade@canardaviation.com> wrote:

Here's a few for the list, Mark,
1. Stock turbo bearings = collapsed=20 & took out apex seal. Flew home at reduced = power.
 
2. Fuel=20 filer (sinstered bronze) looked clean but was restricting fuel flow. = Flew=20 home on other tank.
 
3. Bad / intermittent contact on = ignition=20 timing sensor made engine run rough. Landed normally and=20 repaired.
 
4. Turbo hose blew off on take-off. Returned = to land=20 at reduced power.
John
------ 
 
Been there, = done=20 that. (the blown-off intake hose)
 
Also:

I have burned out 2 turbos.  The first caused = precautionary/urgent=20 landing at an airport pending shutting off fuel flow to the = turbo.  The=20 second, I flipped a turbo oil shut off switch and flew 1000NM to get = home.
 
Had a fuel pump die in flight, switched to the other and kept=20 flying.(soft failure)
I had a bad injector enable switch causing rough running during = some=20 phase one flying (after major change)...  landed = normally 

Forgot to re-connect fuel return line in engine bay after = doing=20 some work.  dumped a couple gallons of fuel onto the running = engine=20 until I smelled gas and shut down the engine.. (never left the = parking space=20 - but it could have been really bad.

Cracked alternator mount bracket found on pre-flight during = phase=20 one testing.  Would have lost cooling and alternator if it = happened=20 now.

PSRU sun gear pin broke from a backfire during = run-up.  Was=20 able to taxi back but would not have been able to = fly.
 
This is=20 good - broke a coolant line in flight and smelled coolant...  = landed at=20 nearby airport and taxied up to restaurant with steam spewing out of = the=20 cowl.  Me and my buddy calmly walked into the restaurant and = had=20 breakfast.  Afterward, we borrowed some tools and fixed the = coolant=20 line.  Went back into the restaurant to ask for 2 pitchers of = water to=20 put in our plane.  Continued ski trip to Mammoth.  The = end.

--
David Leonard

Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Mark = Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks=20 Bill,

With the addition of Bill's exciting adventure, and = one of=20 my own, we're up to 18 incidents in the database.  These last = two,=20 along with Ed's brake fire, and an oil coolant rupture, totals = four=20 incidents involving fires during ground operations.  = Hopefully,=20 everyone carries at least one fire extinguisher in their=20 airplane.

Mark S.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill = Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:
One other thing to watch out = for -- This=20 occurred during ground testing, but if it had happened in the = air it=20 would have been a forced landing.
 
From  my post of Feb. = 8
Well, I haven't heard of this = happening=20 before -- I was ground running my engine to  tune it with = the EM-2=20 and EC-2.  Ran for almost an hour, at various rpm's to = change the=20 manifold pressure and tweak the settings. Cooling working well, = I had=20 the top cowling off to allow good exit area since I was tied = down.=20 Coolant pressure about 14 psi as reported on the = EM-2.
 
Engine was running good, took = it up to=20 ~6000 rpm swinging a 76x76 Catto prop, when suddenly there was = steam and=20 fluid on my windshield. Shut it down by killing power to the = EC-2.=20 Coolant everywhere.
 
Got out and looked to diagnose = the problem=20 -- NOT my plumbing.  A FREEZE PLUG in the iron housing had = blown=20 out. Rapid coolant dump.
 
Secondary effect -- Since I = shut down=20 suddenly from full tilt, either the proximity of the cowl to the = exhaust, or possibly some of the coolant on the exhaust started = a small=20 fire on my cowl. Put it out with extinguisher, but corner is=20 charred.
 
Now in repair = mode.
 
--------------------------
Update since this = incident:  All=20 freeze plugs (7) on the engine have been replaced by Bruce = Turrentine,=20 and he has inspected the engine. I am currently reinstalling it = and=20 getting ready for more tuning exercises.
 
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
-----=20 Original Message -----
From:=20 Mark Steitle
Sent:=20 Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings

Charlie,

That's a very good point.  = I'm=20 trying to stay away from assigning a "cause" for whatever = happened=20 because I don't have all the facts.  I have a field that = says=20 "Explanation of Failure".  Hopefully, we can make = statements as=20 you suggest.  Sometimes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like = the=20 time they attributed the engine failure to the builder = removing the=20 oil injection pump.  Also, I doubt that we could all = agree on a=20 "single cause" for each failure.  Maybe it is due to a = poor weld,=20 or wrong choice of material, or improper strain relief, or = lack of=20 heat shielding, or a little of each.  What I hope to = accomplish=20 is to point out areas where we need to be more careful on how = we=20 design a particular part or system. 

List is at = 16=20 now.  Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy night" = story to=20 the list? 

Mark   

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, = Charlie=20 England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> = wrote:
I think that it's just as important to understand the = real=20 cause of the failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow = sensor,=20 it's highly unlikely that use of the plastic sensor caused = the=20 failure; it was the use of plastic in the wrong area without = any=20 protection. The homebuilder's knee-jerk reaction is to say = 'no=20 plastic sensors because that one melted', even though there = are tens=20 of thousands of the same sensor in use in boating, a much = more=20 severe environment.

Kind of like the canard builder = who tried=20 to put fuel in a wing built with fuel-soluble foam. = Obviously, it=20 failed, but only because of the wrong application of = products, not=20 the products themselves.

Charlie

From: al = wick <alwick@juno.com>=20

To: = Rotary=20 motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, April = 12, 2009=20 10:13:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re: forced=20 landings

Absolutely excellent Mark. I'd encourage you to get the = year the=20 incident occured too. That will be your proof of reduced = risk from=20 things like this newsgroup.

Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not = forced.=20 Because all things are shades of grey. Instead rate the = severity. So=20 it's a 10 if the guy had to glide, it's a 1 if he did=20 precautionary landing. If you also explain what happened, = then a=20 reader can easily tell you were objective in your rating. =

The final piece is about how many flight hours, first = flights=20 there were. Each year there are more engines flying, so way = more=20 likely you will hear of incident. A wild assed guess is ok, = if you=20 just base the guess on some facts. For example, you could = check faa=20 database and find 100 planes registered with rotary engine = in 2005.=20 You can guess that equals 70 hours each. Even though it's a = wild=20 assed guess, it will still be excellent predictor of change = over=20 time. Each year you have the same "error". So your numbers = WILL=20 reflect improvement.

More important than anything. If you can force your self = to say:=20 "That same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you = can look=20 at "contributing factors". Then you can dramatically reduce = personal=20 risk. Good example: We had that guy that installed plastic = fuel flow=20 sensor in fuel line. It melted, he died. Tracy just reported = hot=20 exhaust caused fuel to boil out of carb. These have the=20 same root cause. You don't want to say:" I have efi, = can't=20 happen to me". You want to say:" I expect heat will cause a = failure.=20 I'll put a thin ss shield here, with a bit of fibrefax glued = to=20 back. So if muffler fails, it won't affect....."

Every forced landing had 10 little incidents in the past = that=20 preceded it. Your risk isn't some new cause. It's 1 of those = 10=20 incidents that you rationalized away, instead of saying:" = that will=20 happen to me too."

Good stuff.


-al wick
Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru
230+ hrs = tt from=20 Portland, Oregon

---------- Original Message=20 ----------
From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: "Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary=20 Engines
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:45:24 = -0500

Mike,=20

Has anyone ever tried to document the rotary = incidents=20 resulting in a forced landing?

Here's what I recall = from=20 memory, so it likely is missing a=20 few;
 
    3 forced landings due = to=20 ruptured oil coolers
    1 forced landing = due to=20 apex seal coming out of its slot (rotor out of=20 spec)
    1 forced landing due to improper = assembly of engine (seal wedged between rotor & side=20 housing)
    1 forced landing on highway = due to=20 catastrophic overheating of engine
    2 = forced=20 landings (one fatal) due to probable fuel system design = flaw =20
    1 forced landing on highway due to = ingestion=20 of FOD. 

There were a few others, such as turbo = failures which allowed for continued operation at reduced = power, so=20 we may or may not wish to include those here.  =

While a=20 number of these incidents date back quite a few years, and = we have=20 made excellent progress, it says to me that we still have = room for=20 improvement in the peripheral department.  The good = news is=20 that out of all of the incidents listed above, none of them = were=20 caused by a true engine failure.  That's where the = rotary has=20 really earned my respect as a viable a/c engine.

Pay=20 attention to the details!

Mark S.=20


On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net> = wrote:
This has been an = interesting thread.=20 In the end, it doesnt really matter how many "major" parts = you=20 have - even a minor failure can bring you down. While I = believe=20 the basic rotary engine itself is more fault tolerant than = a=20 recip, the peripherals used in the typical rotary install = are a=20 lot more complex than a typical recip install. Since we = rotary=20 fliers dont have the benefit of 70 years worth of = experience=20 flying behind the typical LyCon farm implement I think = overall our=20 odds are considerably worse. Comes down to how well an = individual=20 engineer's his installation and there is a tremendous = amount of=20 variation here.
 
The dependence on = electronics in the=20 typical rotary install  is a good example. I may be a = little sensitive to this issue since I've been trying = to find=20 an intermittent glitch (2 times in 22 hours of engine=20 testing).
 
Mike Wills
RV-4=20 N144MW  
-----=20 Original Message -----
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To:=20 Rotary motors in aircraft=20
Sent:=20 Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 AM
Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary = Engines

Good=20 analysis and logic, Gary.

 

You=92d=20 make a good addition to the =93rotary = community=94.  I have=20 noticed over the 10 years I have been flying my rotary = powered=20 RV-6A that the problems have decreased considerably, the = success=20 rate and completion rate has gone up and first flights = are now=20 occurring without significant problems =96 even cooling = is OK=20 {:>).  I believe most of this improvement can be = attributed to folks sharing their knowledge, problems = and=20 solutions with others - such as on this list. =20

 

I know=20 that fewer parts count is often touted as one of the = rotary=20 benefit =96 and while it is true that the part count is = lower, the=20 most significant thing (in my opinion) is not only does = the=20 lower part count help reliability (if it is not there = =96 it can=20 not break), but if you look a the design of the = eccentric shaft=20 (for example) you notice the absence of the jogs in a = typical=20 crankshaft and their stress points.  The thing is = over 3=94=20 in diameter at some points and does not have the same = inertia=20 loads born by a piston crankshaft.  The parts that = are=20 there are of very robust design.  Finally, the = rotary is (I=20 believe) more tolerant of damage and tends to fail = =93gradually=20 and gracefully=94, it can take a licking and keep on = ticking as=20 the old saying goes.  Only extended time and = numbers will=20 provide the true MTBF for the rotary, but I believe it = looks=20 very promising.

 

Failure=20 of rotary engines are extremely rare, but unfortunately, = as with=20 many alternative engine installations, auxiliary = subsystems such=20 as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off designs = have been=20 the cause of most failures =96 with probably fuel the = prime=20 culprit.  The good news is that for some platforms = (such as=20 the RVs) we have pretty much established what will make = an=20 installation successful.  The Canard crowd is fast=20 approaching that status with their somewhat more = challenging=20 cooling requirements being over come.

 

 =20 Having lost a rotor during flight due to putting in high = compression rotors with worn apex seal slots worn beyond = specs=20 (found this out later =96 my fault for not being aware = of this=20 spec limit and checking it) which led to apex seal = failure and=20 consequence lost of most of the power from one rotor, I = was=20 still able to maintain 6500 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture = knob to=20 full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH =96 a lot of it = undoubtedly=20  being blown through the disabled rotor.  Flew = it back=20 60 miles to a suitable runway and made a non-eventful=20 landing.   There was a small increase in = vibration due=20 to the power strokes no longer being balanced, but = nothing bad=20 and you could still read the needles on the = gauges.  Other=20 folks have had FOD damage to a rotor and also make it to = a safe=20 landing.  Two folks lost cooling (one loss of = coolant fluid=20 , one lost of water pump) and while they did cook the = engines,=20 both made it back to a safe landing.  So all things = considered, I think the rotary continues to show that if = the=20 installation is designed properly, it makes a very = viable and=20 reliable aircraft power plant.

 

Failure=20 of rotary engines in aircraft are extremely rare, but=20 unfortunately, as with many alternative engine = installations,=20 auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition = frequently being=20 one-off designs - have been the cause of most = failures. =20 The good news is that for some platforms (such as the = RVs) we=20 have pretty much established what will make an = installation=20 successful.  The Canard crowd is fast approaching = that=20 status with their somewhat more challenging cooling = requirements=20 being over come.

 

My=20 rotary installation cost me $6500 back in 1996, the = primary cost=20 being a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU $2900.  I = have=20 since purchased a 1991 turbo block engine from Japan for = $900=20 and rebuilt it myself for another $2200.  My = radiators (GM=20 evaporator cores) cost $5.00 from the junk yard and = another=20 $50.00 each for having the bungs welded on.  So = depending=20 on how much you buy and how much you build the price can = vary=20 considerably.  Today, I would say it would take a = minimum=20 of around $8000 and more nominally around $10000 for a = complete=20 rotary installation in an RV =96 some folks could do it = for less,=20 some for more.

 

But,=20 regardless of the technical merit (or not) in = someone=92s mind,=20 the crucial thing (in my opinion) is you need to address = two=20 personal factors:

 

1. =20 What is your risk tolerance?  It doesn=92t really = matter how=20 sexy some =93exotic=94 engine installation may seem =96 = if you are not=20 comfortable flying behind (or in front) of it, then it = certainly=20 does not  makes sense to go that route.  After = all,=20 this is supposed to have an element of fun and enjoyment = to=20 it.

 

2. =20 What is your knowledge, experience and background (and = you don=92t=20 have to be an engineer) and do you feel comfortable with = the=20 level of involvement needed.

 

So hope=20 you continue to contribute to expanding our knowledge = and=20 understanding of the rotary in its application to power = plant=20 for aircraft.

 

 

Best=20 Regards

 

Ed

 

 

Ed=20 Anderson

Rv-6A=20 N494BW Rotary Powered

Matthews,=20 NC

eanderson@carolina.rr.com

http://www.andersonee.com

http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html<= /P>

http://www.flyrotary.com/

http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW

http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm

From: Rotary = motors in=20 aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]=20 On Behalf Of = Gary=20 Casey
Sent:=20 Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:36 AM
To: Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft
Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re:=20 Rotary Engines

 

Just to add a few more = comments and=20 answers to the several excellent comments=20 posted:

 

How many parts does it take to = make a=20 rotary rotate?  Well, "parts aren't parts" in this = case.=20  Mark was right in that there are maybe 4 "major"=20 components, but you have to define major.  A piston = engine=20 certainly has far more major parts.  Is a valve a = "major"=20 part?  I think so.  Is a rotor corner button a = major=20 part?  Not sure, but probably not.  Is each = planet=20 gear in the PSRU a major part?  I say yes, and the = PSRU is=20 an integral part of the rotary engine.  As someone=20 correctly pointed out, it's not how many parts, but the=20 reliability of the total system that counts.  Just = looking=20 at the history of the rotary (which, from the = implication of=20 another post) it's not that good, but I don't think it = has=20 anything to do with reliability of the concept. =  It's more=20 to do with the experimental nature of the builds and=20 installations.  My original point, perhaps not well = expressed is that to say there are just 4 parts is an=20 oversimplification.  But let's face it, to put in = an engine=20 that has had many thousands of identical predecessors is = less=20 "experimental" than one that = hasn't..

 

Are we ES drivers more = conservative?=20  Probably so, since the ES is probably one of the=20 experimentals most similar to production aircraft, and = not just=20 because the Columbia (can't force myself to say Cezzna = :-) was a=20 derivative.  Therefore, it tends to attract = conservative=20 builders and owners.  Not surprising then that = almost all=20 ES's have traditional powerplants, with the most = excellent=20 exception of Mark.  While there may be more, I know = of only=20 two off-airport landings caused by engine failures in = the ES in=20 almost 20 years of experience.  One was caused by = fuel=20 starvation right after takeoff (fatal) and one was = caused by a=20 PSRU failure in an auto engine conversion.  So our=20 old-fashioned conservative nature has served us pretty=20 well.

 

Yes, I was assuming that the = rotary had=20 electronic fuel injection and ignition, but that by = itself=20 doesn't change the inherent fuel efficiency of the = engine.=20  Direct injection does have a potential to improve = BSFC=20 because the fuel charge can be stratified.  It will = probably decrease available power, though.  I think = the=20 best rotary will be 5% less efficient than the "best" = piston=20 engine(same refinements added to each).  But I = stated that=20 as a simple disadvantage - as Mark pointed out, it isn't = that=20 simple.  The rotary already comes configured to run = on auto=20 gas.  The piston engine can also be so configured, = but the=20 compression ratio reduction would reduce its BSFC and = maybe=20 durability advantage.  The total operating cost is=20 certainly significantly less if auto gas can always be = used to=20 refuel.  I assumed in my assessment that it will = only be=20 available 50% of the time.  The real disadvantage, = which I=20 failed to state, is that the extra fuel required for a = given=20 mission might be 5 or 10% higher and that negated the = weight=20 advantage, if only for long-range=20 flights.

 

Is the engine less expensive? =  I=20 did a thorough analysis of a direct-drive recip auto = engine=20 installation and my conclusion was that if the auto = engine were=20 equivalent in reliability to the aircraft engine it = would likely=20 cost just as much.  Is the same true of the rotary? =  I'm not sure, but you have to consider the total = cost,=20 including engineering of all the parts in the system, = not just=20 the core engine.  I would love to do a rotary = installation,=20 but I don't think I could justify it by cost=20 reduction.

 

It wasn't mentioned in the = posts, but=20 some have claimed the rotary is "smoother" than a recip. =  I=20 at first resisted that notion.  Sure, any rotary = given=20 sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly balanced. =  A=20 4-cylinder opposed recip is not - there is a significant = secondary couple.  The 6-cylinder opposed engine is = perfectly balanced, but only for PRIMARY and SECONDARY = forces=20 and couples - higher order forces have never really been = analyzed, although they would be very small.  And = then=20 consider the forces within the engine that have to be = resisted=20 by that long, heavy, but flexible crankshaft.  So = it isn't=20 the mechanical balance that gives the rotary an = advantage.=20  Let's take a look at the the torsional pulsations, = comparing the 3-rotor against the 6-cylinder:  A = 6-cylinder=20 engine has 3 power impulses per rotation, as does the = 3-rotor,=20 so they are the same, right?  Wrong.  They = both=20 incorporate 4 "stroke" cycles, meaning that there = separate and=20 sequential intake, compression, power and exhaust events = so that=20 is the same for both.  The power event, which is = the source=20 of the torque impulse, takes 1/2 of a crank = rotation for=20 the recip.  In the rotary the power event requires = 1/4 of a=20 ROTOR rotation, but the rotor rotates at 1/3 crank = rotation -=20 the result is that the power impulse lasts 3/4 of a = CRANK=20 rotation, 50% longer than in a recip.  Therefore, = the=20 torsional excitation delivered to the propeller, PSRU = and to the=20 airframe is significantly less than for a recip. =  And if=20 you analyze the actual forces imparted, they go down by = the=20 square of the rpm.  The torsional vibration = amplitude goes=20 down by a factor of 4 just because the rpm of the rotary = turns=20 about twice as fast.  If you've skipped to the = bottom of=20 the paragraph, as you probably should have :-), yes the = rotary=20 is "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my apologies to rotary = purists, for simplicity I used the word "crankshaft" for = both=20 engines)

 

But just because you can burn = auto gas=20 should you?  The biggest problems with auto gas in = recip=20 aircraft have nothing to do with the engine, but with = the high=20 vapor pressure of the fuel - it is more prone to vapor = lock.=20  The fuel systems of certified aircraft are not=20 particularly well designed with regard to vapor lock.=20  "Fortunately", rotary engines typically have no = mechanical=20 fuel pump and are forced to rely on electric pumps.=20  Fortunately because the pumps can be located at = the very=20 bottom of the aircraft and close to the fuel tanks, = making vapor=20 lock much less likely.  I would caution any = builders to=20 consider vapor lock possibilities very seriously, much = more so=20 if you intend to run auto gas.  when I was going to = do this=20 I planned to put one electric pump in the wing root of = each=20 wing, feeding the engine directly(the check valve in the = non-running pump prevents back-feeding). =  Redundancy was by=20 a "crossfeed" line that could connect the tanks=20 together.

 

And thanks, Mark for - = probably=20 incorrectly - referring to me as a "good engineer". =  I'll=20 have to put that in my resume!

 

Have a good = day,

Gary

(do you allow us outsiders in = your=20 events?  I'll park well away = :-)

 




__________ Information from ESET NOD32=20 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3267 = (20080714)=20 __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32=20 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com/=20

=


=
<= /BLOCKQUOTE>


--
David Leonard

Turbo Rotary RV-6 = N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
<= /DIV>


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG = -=20 www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.54/2056 - = Release=20 Date: 04/13/09 05:51:00
------=_NextPart_000_006D_01C9BC74.6B900A80--