Return-Path: Received: from tomcat.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 410373 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:41:09 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov Received: from PILEUS.al.noaa.gov (pileus.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.195]) by tomcat.al.noaa.gov (8.12.0/8.12.0) with ESMTP id i8EFbdxO001936 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:37:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.0.20040914091505.04c57100@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov> X-Sender: bdube@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:37:57 -0600 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed If you are after the very ultimate in reliability, then a single-engine experimental aircraft with an alternative engine is probably not the right choice. Whenever you modify something, or build a prototype, little things nearly always go wrong, no matter how careful and skilled you are. That is why the FAA requires a fly-off period for all experimental aircraft. Of the alternative engines, a rotary appears to be the most reliable and robust. However, the typical alternative engine installed in an experimental aircraft has a higher failure rate than the typical certified engine installed in an experimental aircraft. If your target is ultimate reliability, you should probably buy a certified twin-engine aircraft. If your heart is set on "rolling your own" (including an alternative engine) then perhaps you should build a twin-engine aircraft using a pair of rotaries. Perhaps a scaled-down version of Rutan's Voyager.