X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.241.40] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTP id 3525137 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:17:53 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.40; envelope-from=alventures@cox.net Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20090303161714.JDTN22254.fed1rmmtao106.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 11:17:14 -0500 Received: from BigAl ([72.192.133.251]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id NgHD1b0075RcKeo04gHDwR; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:17:13 -0500 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=RgAroyKy78wA:10 a=U1ZaYnf293oA:10 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=pedpZTtsAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=gGD7p7N6T6a8ODgpKDcA:9 a=ysiDt9QLD8gNaKFOn3sA:7 a=BZhhlR3bGbbOvI6VJUPkey1EQVUA:4 a=vNGxQsTWjH8A:10 a=-K1qMbr-rfkA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=eJojReuL3h0A:10 a=zqY4gg1KSwjuuNEu:21 a=AvWC58lS2OXRZ5yF:21 a=wrY-YYb2IrBEBQRGeCIA:9 a=BBwM7uqRDW4AhfS_P0UA:7 a=b2z0c6o3kyQsYL4ExIvbDfch-eUA:4 a=37WNUvjkh6kA:10 a=K6wvuwGgPNx23BOi:21 a=aQziCEJ9wHsM6j46:21 X-CM-Score: 0.00 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:18:22 -0800 Message-ID: <0FED46BE874A4C78804AF4FA5C1BA288@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000C_01C99BD8.9DF65EA0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6838 Importance: Normal Thread-Index: AcmcA2f5wRhsmKcVTLa86qNALCfqQwAFl7Eg In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C99BD8.9DF65EA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark; =20 Good point on the fuel cost. Here=92s another that is fresh in my mind. = I noticed a few weeks that the voltage was fluctuating during flight, = ranging about 1 =BD volts, and hitting a high over 15.5 volts. I use the = internal regulator, but modified to use external field supply with a = =91crowbar=92 circuit for over-voltage protection. I decided to replace the regulator. Took the alternator off, opened it up, got a replacement regulator at a local rebuild shop for $38; back together on the plane, working fine. Meanwhile my friends Bonanza is in for an annual. They decided the alternator wasn=92t putting out what it should =96 replacement cost: = over $700. =20 His Continental (520 I think) is past the 1750 recommended TBO. So he is debating between factory reman at about $35,000, or new at about = $45,000. =20 Yeah; I love my rotary 20B. =20 Al G =20 -----Original Message----- From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 5:24 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane =20 William, =20 I'll throw my 2 cents worth in here. Regardinging fuel burn, I'm not = overly concerned with bsfc, although its not that bad if you're running EFI. = What we're really interested in is cost per mile. I have burned nothing but mogas in my 3-rotor Lancair. The last time I purchased fuel, it was $1.65/gallon. My N/A 3-rotor burns between 10 and 11 gph at around 20" = MAP. So, it will cost me somewhere around $16.50 - $18.15/hr to fly. Other Lancair ES's are running IO-540's, or some derivative of the "540". = From what I hear, they burn between 12 - 15 gph. With the cost of 100LL = running around $4/gallon, that would cost between $48 - $60/hr in fuel. So, figuring cost per mile, I don't see how a Lycoming could come close to matching a rotary. The fuel savings alone will more than cover the cost = of an overhaul. =20 =20 And hope the Lycoming doesn't burn a valve, or any number of other = common ailments which can take a serious bite out of your checkbook. Most of = the things that break on a piston engine aren't even present on the rotary. = If it ain't there, it can't break. =20 So, would I use a rotary if I were to do it over, yes, absolutely! =20 Mark S. On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM, William Wilson wrote: I have not found an accomodating A&P but I attribute that to the fact = that I have not looked yet. Given that I live in Seattle I am pretty sure I = can find one. Seattle is crawling (fluttering?) with homebuilt planes. If anyone has suggestions, I am listening, but I had not started searching = yet. Plan is not to take apart a perfectly good flying plane to change the engine, but ideally to get one with a rotary in it already, or replace = only at overhaul time. In each case I save as much on the cheaper engine as = I would lose on resale value... and if the plane has the rotary in it to = start with, I get to pay the lower price up front too, which makes price difference just plain better. For efficiency what I said was that homebuilt planes are more efficient = than factory built, not that rotary are more efficient than Lycoming, though = in that case it should be quite close. Bad fuel economy of rotary engine = is overstated, economy is comparatively bad at low power & RPM but at high power it is not bad at all. As long as you are not turbocharged, you = can run much leaner than a piston engine, making up for less efficient combustion chamber shape. Rotary BSFC in the lab has gone as low as = .375 (for renesis), and .44-.46 measured in real world racing applications = even with traditional type engine. So I think I would not see a significant difference in fuel economy between rotary and piston. Weight & drag of = the plane it is in will matter more. In any case all advice is welcome, even dissenting opinions ;) On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Mike Wills wrote: William, =20 I highly recommend you check around to make sure you can find an A&P = who will do a condition inspection with the rotary engine installed BEFORE = you commit. Many A&Ps I've talked to dont want anything to do with = Experimentals let alone an engine that looks nothing like what they are used to. = There's simply too much potential liability (real or perceived) to go out on a = limb like that. The A&P who used to do the condition inspection on the RV-6A = I used to own (Lycoming powered) was willing to do it because the RV = structure is similar to typical spam cans. He wont have anything to do with wet = layup homebuilts (EZs, Cozys, etc...). He doesnt even like doing annuals on Diamond aircraft with the Rotax 912/914 and they are certified. =20 If you buy a flying homebuilt that is Lyc or Continental powered, = before you convert it to rotary power seriously think about what you are doing = to the resale value - if you could ever sell it that is. My guess is that you'll give up at least $10,000 in resale value, maybe much more. No big deal if you plan on keeping it for life. =20 I dont know where you got the idea that rotaries are more fuel = efficient. Lycosaurs/Continentals typically have BSFCs in the low .40s. The = commonly accepted number for a rotary is about .50. Some here seem to do better, others worse. With a grand total of 2 hours on my rotary I cant say what = my experience will be but hope its close to the Lyc I used to fly. =20 Finally dont underestimate the effort required to make the change. I started building my RV-4 in late 1995. The airframe was essentially = done in 2000. My first flight was last month. Granted I took longer than many = and much of the trouble came from my desire to eliminate the cowl cheeks on = an already cramped engine compartment. But thats eight years of tinkering = to get the engine installed and running to the point where I had enough confidence in it to fly it. =20 Not trying to discourage you, but go into this with eyes wide open. =20 Mike Wills RV-4 N144MW - Show quoted text - =20 =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: William Wilson =20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft =20 Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:46 PM Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary plane =20 This is great news. Thanks Charlie and Bob :) On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Charlie England = wrote: William Wilson wrote: I am in the market for a plane and would prefer a rotary-powered, as I = have lots of experience working with rotary engines. As a bonus, homebuilt planes all seem to get about twice as much fuel economy as factory built planes. So that is nice too. I know there are a few rotary powered = planes available for sale, but not too many. I have neither the time nor desire to build my own plane, so my question = is more about maintenance and inspections. I'm not an official A&P and I = don't know if I will be able to find an A&P to work on a home built plane with = a car engine in it! I am happy to do engine maintenance, but am not = entirely clear on the legality of it, since I would not be the original builder. Similarly when it is eventually time for an engine rebuild, would I be = able to remove the engine, take it down to Atkins (who are not far from me) = and have them rebuild it, or rebuild it myself, and then reinstall it, and = find an A&P to just sign off on the work? Plan B is to buy whatever plane even if it has a Lycosaurus, but when = time for overhaul comes, get rid of the Lycoming and replace it with a = rotary. Thought in this case is to get the rotary tuned, a little broken in and running on a stand in the hangar in advance, so that when the time comes = to do the swap it can be done with a minimum of downtime. (I know it = cannot really be tuned for altitude in this way but it is better than = nothing!). But again, the fact that I would not be the original builder makes me = worry about legalities. I have heard that this has been done so question is = more about the how. I do not really understand all the law involved and hopefully somebody = here can help. Thanks! =20 I can't speak with authority, but I can speak from experience. Experimental homebuilts can be maintained or modified by anyone. No FAA blessings required. Annual condition inspections must be performed by = either the holder of the 'repairman's certificate' (only available to the = builder of record) or by the holder of an A&P ticket (no IA required). Once the airworthiness certificate is awarded, *anyone* can do any maintenance, repairs, modifications etc desired. The post-modification requirements vary somewhat from plane to plane depending on when the a/w = was issued, but in general terms, you notify the FAA in writing that major = mods were made, ask for a defined test area, make a log entry detailing the return to 'phase one' testing, fly test flights for (typically) 5 hours, then make another log entry saying that the plane has been tested with = the mods & is being returned to 'phase two' (normal operational) status. 'Major modification' isn't clearly defined, but if you have to ask, it's major. :-) The availability of an A&P to sign off condition inspections is all over = the map (literally). It's never been a problem for me, but in some parts of = the country people can't find an A&P who will sign off *any* homebuilt, no matter what engine. If you have that problem, get to know the guys who = sign off the crop dusters in your area. Hope that helps.... Charlie=20 -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C99BD8.9DF65EA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Mark;

 

Good point on the fuel cost. = Here’s another that is fresh in my mind. I noticed a few weeks that the voltage = was fluctuating during flight, ranging about 1 =BD volts, and hitting a high = over 15.5 volts. =A0I use the internal regulator, but modified to use = external field supply with a ‘crowbar’ circuit for over-voltage protection. = I decided to replace the regulator.=A0 Took the alternator off, opened it up, got = a replacement regulator at a local rebuild shop for $38; back together on = the plane, working fine. =A0Meanwhile my friends Bonanza is in for an = annual. They decided the alternator wasn’t putting out what it should – replacement cost: over $700.

 

His Continental (520 I think) is = past the 1750 recommended TBO. So he is debating between factory reman at = about $35,000, or new at about $45,000.

 

Yeah; I love my rotary = 20B.

 

Al G

 

-----Original = Message-----
From: Rotary motors in = aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, = 2009 5:24 AM
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions on buying a rotary plane

 

William,

 

I'll throw my 2 cents worth in here.  Regardinging fuel burn, I'm not overly concerned with bsfc, although its = not that bad if you're running EFI.  What we're really interested in is = cost per mile.  I have burned nothing but mogas in my 3-rotor = Lancair.  The last time I purchased fuel, it was $1.65/gallon.  My N/A 3-rotor burns between 10 and 11 gph at around 20" MAP.  = So, it will cost me somewhere around $16.50 - $18.15/hr to fly.  = Other Lancair ES's are running IO-540's, or some derivative of the "540".  From what I hear, they burn between 12 - 15 = gph.  With the cost of 100LL running around $4/gallon, that would cost = between $48 - $60/hr in fuel.  So, figuring cost per mile, I don't see how = a Lycoming could come close to matching a rotary.  The fuel = savings alone will more than cover the cost of an overhaul.  =

 

And hope the Lycoming doesn't burn a = valve, or any number of other common ailments which can take a serious = bite out of your checkbook.  Most of the things that break on a piston = engine aren't even present on the rotary.  If it ain't there, it can't = break.

 

So, would I use a rotary if I were to do it = over, yes, absolutely!

   
Mark S.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:31 PM, William = Wilson <fluffysheap@gmail.com> = wrote:

I have not found an accomodating A&P but I attribute that to the fact that = I have not looked yet.  Given that I live in Seattle I am pretty sure I = can find one.  Seattle is crawling (fluttering?) with homebuilt = planes.  If anyone has suggestions, I am listening, but I had not started searching = yet.

Plan is not to take apart a perfectly good flying plane to change the = engine, but ideally to get one with a rotary in it already, or replace only at = overhaul time.  In each case I save as much on the cheaper engine as I would = lose on resale value... and if the plane has the rotary in it to start with, = I get to pay the lower price up front too, which makes price difference just = plain better.

For efficiency what I said was that homebuilt planes are more efficient = than factory built, not that rotary are more efficient than Lycoming, though = in that case it should be quite close.  Bad fuel economy of rotary engine = is overstated, economy is comparatively bad at low power & RPM but at = high power it is not bad at all.  As long as you are not turbocharged, = you can run much leaner than a piston engine, making up for less efficient = combustion chamber shape.  Rotary BSFC in the lab has gone as low as .375 (for renesis), and .44-.46 measured in real world racing applications even = with traditional type engine.  So I think I would not see a significant difference in fuel economy between rotary and piston.  Weight & = drag of the plane it is in will matter more.

In any case all advice is welcome, even dissenting opinions = ;)

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Mike Wills = <rv-4mike@cox.net> wrote:

William,

 

 I highly recommend = you check around to make sure you can find an A&P who will do a condition = inspection with the rotary engine installed BEFORE you commit. Many A&Ps I've = talked to dont want anything to do with Experimentals let alone an engine that = looks nothing like what they are used to. There's simply too much potential = liability (real or perceived) to go out on a limb like that. The A&P who used = to do the condition inspection on the RV-6A I used to own (Lycoming powered) = was willing to do it because the RV structure is similar to typical spam = cans. He wont have anything to do with wet layup homebuilts (EZs, Cozys, etc...). = He doesnt even like doing annuals on Diamond aircraft with the Rotax = 912/914 and they are certified.

 

 If you buy a flying = homebuilt that is Lyc or Continental powered, before you convert it to rotary = power seriously think about what you are doing to the resale value - if you = could ever sell it that is. My guess is that you'll give up at least $10,000 = in resale value, maybe much more. No big deal if you plan on keeping it for = life.

 

 I dont know where you = got the idea that rotaries are more fuel efficient. Lycosaurs/Continentals = typically have BSFCs in the low .40s. The commonly accepted number for a rotary is = about .50. Some here seem to do better, others worse. With a grand total of 2 = hours on my rotary I cant say what my experience will be but hope its close to = the Lyc I used to fly.

 

 Finally dont = underestimate the effort required to make the change. I started building my RV-4  in = late 1995. The airframe was essentially done in 2000. My first flight was = last month. Granted I took longer than many and much of the trouble came from = my desire to eliminate the cowl cheeks on an already cramped engine = compartment. But thats eight years of tinkering to get the engine installed and = running to the point where I had enough confidence in it to fly = it.

 

 Not trying to = discourage you, but go into this with eyes wide open.

 

Mike Wills

RV-4 N144MW

- Show quoted text -

 

 

=

----- Original Message = -----

To:<= /font> Rotary motors in aircraft =

Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 7:46 PM

Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [FlyRotary] Re: Questions on buying a rotary = plane

 

This is great news.  Thanks Charlie and Bob :)

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Charlie = England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:

William Wilson wrote:

I am in the market for a plane and would = prefer a rotary-powered, as I have lots of experience working with rotary = engines.  As a bonus, homebuilt planes all seem to get about twice as much = fuel economy as factory built planes.  So that is nice too.  I know = there are a few rotary powered planes available for sale, but not too = many.

I have neither the time nor desire to build my own plane, so my question = is more about maintenance and inspections.  I'm not an official = A&P and I don't know if I will be able to find an A&P to work on a home built = plane with a car engine in it!  I am happy to do engine maintenance, but = am not entirely clear on the legality of it, since I would not be the original builder.

Similarly when it is eventually time for an engine rebuild, would I be = able to remove the engine, take it down to Atkins (who are not far from me) and = have them rebuild it, or rebuild it myself, and then reinstall it, and find = an A&P to just sign off on the work?

Plan B is to buy whatever plane even if it has a Lycosaurus, but when = time for overhaul comes, get rid of the Lycoming and replace it with a rotary.  Thought in this case is to get the rotary tuned, a little broken = in and running on a stand in the hangar in advance, so that when the time comes = to do the swap it can be done with a minimum of downtime.  (I know it = cannot really be tuned for altitude in this way but it is better than = nothing!).  But again, the fact that I would not be the original builder makes = me worry about legalities.  I have heard that this has been done so = question is more about the how.

I do not really understand all the law involved and hopefully somebody = here can help.  Thanks!

 

I can't speak with authority, but I can speak = from experience.

Experimental homebuilts can be maintained or modified by anyone. No FAA blessings required. Annual condition inspections must be performed by = either the holder of the 'repairman's certificate' (only available to the = builder of record) or by the holder of an A&P ticket (no IA required).

Once the airworthiness certificate is awarded, *anyone* can do any = maintenance, repairs, modifications etc desired. The post-modification requirements = vary somewhat from plane to plane depending on when the a/w was issued, but = in general terms, you notify the FAA in writing that major mods were made, = ask for a defined test area, make a log entry detailing the return to 'phase = one' testing, fly test flights for (typically) 5 hours, then make another log = entry saying that the plane has been tested with the mods & is being = returned to 'phase two' (normal operational) status.

'Major modification' isn't clearly defined, but if you have to ask, it's = major. :-)

The availability of an A&P to sign off condition inspections is all = over the map (literally). It's never been a problem for me, but in some parts = of the country people can't find an A&P who will sign off  *any* = homebuilt, no matter what engine. If you have that problem,  get to know the = guys who sign off the crop dusters in your area.

Hope that helps....

Charlie

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_000C_01C99BD8.9DF65EA0--