Return-Path: Received: from [192.55.52.30] (HELO fmsfmr003.fm.intel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 410648 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:18:52 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=192.55.52.30; envelope-from=randy.smith@intel.com Received: from petasus.fm.intel.com (petasus.fm.intel.com [10.1.192.37]) by fmsfmr003.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id i8EIGVS6027242 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:16:31 GMT Received: from fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.126]) by petasus.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with SMTP id i8EIFsr4004168 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:16:02 GMT Received: from fmsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.148]) by fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004091411151929459 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:15:19 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.208]) by fmsmsx332.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:15:19 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:15:19 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop Thread-Index: AcSacXcxuUz6IjDVRtaU8kK9TpsWIgAEqb1g From: "Smith, Randy" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 18:15:19.0862 (UTC) FILETIME=[CB32DD60:01C49A86] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) >-----Original Message----- >From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Bill >Dube >Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 11:38 AM >To: Rotary motors in aircraft >Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop > >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. Agreed. However, since that is precisely what I am going to build, the question becomes how I can build it with the most reliability possible within my time and money constraints. > > 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. I agree. One benefit of having the plans and not being able to start construction for almost 10 years is that I have had the time to reading numerous web sites, read almost every posting on several mailing lists and meet a variety of people who each have contributed to my knowledge base. I know it is risky and apt to fail...initially. What I hope to have when I'm done is an airplane/powerplant with several (hopefully) well thought out improvements to allow for the type of missions I intend to fly. > > If your target is ultimate reliability, you should probably buy a >certified twin-engine aircraft. Why? Hopefully because it is twin-engine and not because it is certified. But that is another discussion. Besides, my target isn't ultimate reliability. My target is just what I said above. > 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. Nothing of that sort is in my budget. (nor exists that I know of) :-)