X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f167.google.com ([209.85.219.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3580431 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 09:09:17 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.167; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ewy11 with SMTP id 11so3761102ewy.19 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:08:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=wD31uV1LcS5aJG2pT2/LBm5V/1Bb2S12oTcILFLMdaA=; b=DUrA9iE20UNuDnAesk+mJuIsSpBRUeU8p69UlVEXsBUNKNkFZC1OZXmqITrFB5rXNX Lm9DMP5GLOpGkMde/F8x0JWA9k7NpEkzdlWftdkIP5i0s4dBS6mjGZ3M3h8svI7NQncK Kn45Ntv/SLG34iPqqORNVoj91pbi20KDwN0JE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=PGUFyhUPK1vseOSEynvij0wzxJMS0OgpfHjFjjFjMJ2x2OfVgJbN128tCMI4xY8Uxg eaSNmikJCZSMqd8eToRfN1CAU076VZzTXd+KIupa7qy9mTf6EucDVUEC9A7/ZKUtydGi IYM80TXEqPTC1zvrWIhO3Mm5hnAq/mthkahiY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.120.17 with SMTP id s17mr2924135ebc.11.1239714520255; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:08:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 08:08:40 -0500 Message-ID: <5cf132c0904140608o5014f300ja75d2d610939007d@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c368e9a4be60467838707 --0015174c368e9a4be60467838707 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mike, May I suggest adding a coolant level indicator. This will give an early warning in situations like you described. I purchased my float switch from McMaster for less than $30. Be sure to get the high-temp one. Mark S. On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Mike Perry wrote: > 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 pas= t > 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. > > This last Saturday at 72 hours on the engine I took off for my second tes= t > 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 > 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 19= 0. > > 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 o= f > 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 400= 0 > 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 > 90 knots. GPS says 10 minute ETE and now the oil temp is at 200. > > 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 i= t > down I had a trail of coolant > behind me. I pulled the cowl off and had coolant all over the bottom cow= l > 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 > 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:* Mark Steitle > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2009 9:16 AM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings > > Dave, > > 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. > > Mark S. > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:55 AM, David Leonard wro= te: > >> 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. >> >> 2. Fuel filer (sinstered bronze) looked clean but was restricting fuel >> flow. Flew home on other tank. >> >> 3. Bad / intermittent contact on ignition timing sensor made engine run >> rough. Landed normally and repaired. >> >> 4. Turbo hose blew off on take-off. Returned to land at reduced power. >> John >> ------ >> >> Been there, done that. (the blown-off intake hose) >> >> Also: >> I have burned out 2 turbos. The first caused precautionary/urgent landi= ng >> 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.(so= ft >> failure) >> I had a bad injector enable switch causing rough running during some pha= se >> one flying (after major change)... landed normally >> >> 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 - b= ut >> 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. >> >> 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 o= ur >> 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 wrot= e: >> >>> Thanks Bill, >>> >>> With the addition of Bill's exciting adventure, and one of my own, we'r= e >>> up to 18 incidents in the database. These last two, along with Ed's br= ake >>> fire, and an oil coolant rupture, totals four incidents involving fires >>> during ground operations. Hopefully, everyone carries at least one fir= e >>> extinguisher in their airplane. >>> >>> Mark S. >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill Schertz wr= ote: >>> >>>> 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 are= a >>>> since I was tied down. Coolant pressure about 14 psi as reported on th= e >>>> EM-2. >>>> >>>> Engine was running good, took it up to ~6000 rpm swinging a 76x76 Catt= o >>>> prop, when suddenly there was steam and fluid on my windshield. Shut i= t down >>>> by killing power to the EC-2. Coolant everywhere. >>>> >>>> Got out and looked to diagnose the problem -- NOT my plumbing. A FREE= ZE >>>> 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 cool= ant on >>>> the exhaust started a small fire on my cowl. Put it out with extinguis= her, >>>> 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 ----- >>>> *From:* Mark Steitle >>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>> *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 h= ave a >>>> field that says "Explanation of Failure". Hopefully, we can make stat= ements >>>> as you suggest. Sometimes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time = they >>>> attributed the engine failure to the builder removing the oil injectio= n >>>> pump. Also, I doubt that we could all agree on a "single cause" for e= ach >>>> 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 mo= re >>>> careful on how we design a particular part or system. >>>> >>>> List is at 16 now. Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy night" >>>> story to the list? >>>> >>>> Mark >>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charlie England < >>>> ceengland@bellsouth.net> 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 th= e 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 mel= ted', >>>>> 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 >>>>> *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 th= ings >>>>> like this newsgroup. >>>>> >>>>> 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 ob= jective >>>>> in your rating. >>>>> >>>>> 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 gues= s on >>>>> some facts. For example, you could check faa database and find 100 pl= anes >>>>> registered with rotary engine in 2005. You can guess that equals 70 h= ours >>>>> 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". S= o your >>>>> numbers WILL reflect improvement. >>>>> >>>>> More important than anything. If you can force your self to say: "Tha= t >>>>> same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look at >>>>> "contributing factors". Then you can dramatically reduce personal ris= k. Good >>>>> example: We had that guy that installed plastic fuel flow sensor in f= uel >>>>> 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 s= ay:" I >>>>> have efi, can't happen to me". You want to say:" I expect heat will c= ause 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 precede= d >>>>> 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, >>>>> >>>>> 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; >>>>> >>>>> 3 forced landings due to ruptured oil coolers >>>>> 1 forced landing due to apex seal coming out of its slot (rotor o= ut >>>>> 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 >>>>> 1 forced landing on highway due to ingestion of FOD. >>>>> >>>>> 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 in= clude >>>>> those here. >>>>> >>>>> 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 f= or >>>>> 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 eng= ine >>>>> failure. That's where the rotary has really earned my respect as a v= iable >>>>> a/c engine. >>>>> >>>>> Pay attention to the details! >>>>> >>>>> Mark S. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills wro= te: >>>>> >>>>>> This has been an interesting thread. In the end, it doesnt reall= y >>>>>> matter how many "major" parts you have - even a minor failure can br= ing you >>>>>> down. While I believe the basic rotary engine itself is more fault t= olerant >>>>>> 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 do= nt have >>>>>> the benefit of 70 years worth of experience flying behind the typica= l LyCon >>>>>> farm implement I think overall our odds are considerably worse. Come= s 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 go= od >>>>>> example. I may be a little sensitive to this issue since I've been t= rying to >>>>>> find an intermittent glitch (2 times in 22 hours of engine testing). >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Wills >>>>>> RV-4 N144MW >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> *From:* Ed Anderson >>>>>> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >>>>>> *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 th= e >>>>>> problems have decreased considerably, the success rate and completio= n 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 m= ost >>>>>> significant thing (in my opinion) is not only does the lower part co= unt help >>>>>> reliability (if it is not there =96 it can not break), but if you lo= ok a the >>>>>> design of the eccentric shaft (for example) you notice the absence o= f 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 de= sign. >>>>>> 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 ti= cking as the >>>>>> old saying goes. Only extended time and numbers will provide the tr= ue 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 suc= h as >>>>>> fuel and ignition frequently being one-off designs have been the cau= se of >>>>>> most failures =96 with probably fuel the prime culprit. The good ne= ws 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 appr= oaching >>>>>> that status with their somewhat more challenging cooling requirement= s being >>>>>> over come. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Having lost a rotor during flight due to putting in high compressi= on >>>>>> rotors with worn apex seal slots worn beyond specs (found this out l= ater =96 >>>>>> my fault for not being aware of this spec limit and checking it) whi= ch 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 bl= own 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 coul= d 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 los= s 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 th= ink the >>>>>> rotary continues to show that if the installation is designed proper= ly, 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, auxili= ary >>>>>> subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off design= s - have >>>>>> been the cause of most failures. The good news is that for some pla= tforms >>>>>> (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 purch= ased a >>>>>> 1991 turbo block engine from Japan for $900 and rebuilt it myself fo= r >>>>>> another $2200. My radiators (GM evaporator cores) cost $5.00 from t= he junk >>>>>> yard and another $50.00 each for having the bungs welded on. So dep= ending >>>>>> on how much you buy and how much you build the price can vary consid= erably. >>>>>> 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 fa= ctors: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. What is your risk tolerance? It doesn=92t really matter how sex= y >>>>>> some =93exotic=94 engine installation may seem =96 if you are not co= mfortable >>>>>> 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 o= f >>>>>> involvement needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So hope you continue to contribute to expanding our knowledge and >>>>>> understanding of the rotary in its application to power plant for ai= rcraft. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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.ne= t] >>>>>> *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 c= ertainly >>>>>> 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 e= ach >>>>>> 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 ou= t, it's >>>>>> not how many parts, but the reliability of the total system that cou= nts. >>>>>> Just looking at the history of the rotary (which, from the implicat= ion 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 experimen= tal >>>>>> nature of the builds and installations. My original point, perhaps = not well >>>>>> expressed is that to say there are just 4 parts is an oversimplifica= tion. >>>>>> 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 aircraf= t, and >>>>>> not just because the Columbia (can't force myself to say Cezzna :-) = was a >>>>>> derivative. Therefore, it tends to attract conservative builders an= d >>>>>> 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 failu= res in >>>>>> the ES in almost 20 years of experience. One was caused by fuel sta= rvation >>>>>> right after takeoff (fatal) and one was caused by a PSRU failure in = an auto >>>>>> engine conversion. So our old-fashioned conservative nature has ser= ved us >>>>>> pretty well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I was assuming that the rotary had electronic fuel injection an= d >>>>>> ignition, but that by itself doesn't change the inherent fuel effici= ency of >>>>>> the engine. Direct injection does have a potential to improve BSFC = because >>>>>> the fuel charge can be stratified. It will probably decrease availa= ble >>>>>> power, though. I think the best rotary will be 5% less efficient th= an 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 engi= ne can >>>>>> also be so configured, but the compression ratio reduction would red= uce its >>>>>> BSFC and maybe durability advantage. The total operating cost is ce= rtainly >>>>>> significantly less if auto gas can always be used to refuel. I assu= med in >>>>>> my assessment that it will only be available 50% of the time. The r= eal >>>>>> disadvantage, which I failed to state, is that the extra fuel requir= ed 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 th= at if >>>>>> the auto engine were equivalent in reliability to the aircraft engin= e 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 re= duction. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It wasn't mentioned in the posts, but some have claimed the rotary i= s >>>>>> "smoother" than a recip. I at first resisted that notion. Sure, an= y rotary >>>>>> given sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly balanced. A 4-cylin= der >>>>>> opposed recip is not - there is a significant secondary couple. The >>>>>> 6-cylinder opposed engine is perfectly balanced, but only for PRIMAR= Y 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 rotar= y an >>>>>> advantage. Let's take a look at the the torsional pulsations, compa= ring the >>>>>> 3-rotor against the 6-cylinder: A 6-cylinder engine has 3 power imp= ulses >>>>>> per rotation, as does the 3-rotor, so they are the same, right? Wro= ng. >>>>>> They both incorporate 4 "stroke" cycles, meaning that there separat= e 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 impuls= e, takes >>>>>> 1/2 of a crank rotation for the recip. In the rotary the power even= t >>>>>> 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 exci= tation >>>>>> delivered to the propeller, PSRU and to the airframe is significantl= y less >>>>>> than for a recip. And if you analyze the actual forces imparted, th= ey go >>>>>> down by the square of the rpm. The torsional vibration amplitude go= es down >>>>>> by a factor of 4 just because the rpm of the rotary turns about twic= e as >>>>>> fast. If you've skipped to the bottom of the paragraph, as you prob= ably >>>>>> should have :-), yes the rotary is "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my >>>>>> apologies to rotary purists, for simplicity I used the word "cranksh= aft" 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 v= apor >>>>>> lock. The fuel systems of certified aircraft are not particularly w= ell >>>>>> designed with regard to vapor lock. "Fortunately", rotary engines t= ypically >>>>>> have no mechanical fuel pump and are forced to rely on electric pump= s. >>>>>> 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 li= kely. 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 g= oing 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 conn= ect 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database: 270.11.54/2056 - Release Date: 04/13/0= 9 > 05:51:00 > > --0015174c368e9a4be60467838707 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mike,
=A0
May I suggest adding a coolant level indicator.=A0 This will give an e= arly warning in situations like you described.=A0 I purchased my float swit= ch from McMaster for less than $30.=A0 Be sure to get the high-temp one.
=A0
Mark S.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Mike Perry <MKPerry99@cfl.rr.= com> wrote:
Here is another to add to the list.=A0= "Water pump failure".=A0 At 18 hours I noticed my water pump lea= king
through the weep hole.=A0 This was a s= low 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.=A0 When I bought the new one at t= he Mazda dealer the parts department said they could only get
rebuilds.
=A0
This last Saturday at 72 hours on the = engine I took off for my second test flight with a new IVO Magnum
adjustable prop.=A0 Excellent accelera= tion 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
prop I would take off and climb to 100= 0 AGL then reduce power to let temp cool down to below 200 degrees.<= /div>
It would hit about 220 in the climb.= =A0 Oil temps have always been below 190.
=A0
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 23= 0.=A0 On this second flight I did my usual reduced power and let=A0it cool<= /font>
down as I flew out to my test area ove= r 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.=A0 At this point I am 20 minutes into<= /div>
the flight when I notice my temps are = back at 230.=A0 I reduce power to 4000 rpm and check oil temp is
still at 180-190.=A0 I turned back to = the airport=A0but the temp is still climbing.=A0 Reduced power to 3500 and = about
90 knots.=A0 GPS says 10 minute ETE an= d now the oil temp is at 200.=A0
=A0
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 ai= r and 230 on the pump inlet sensor. Oil temp hit a hi of 230.=A0 The engine=
never missed a beat the whole time.=A0= When I got off the runway and shut it down I had a trail of coolant=
behind me.=A0 I pulled the cowl off an= d had coolant all over the bottom cowl where my over flow tube dumps out
but no sign of hose or fitting failure= s.=A0 Sunday after letting it cool overnight I swung the prop through and i= t still
has good compression from the sound of= it.=A0 I started to fill up my expansion tank and after about 2 quarts of<= /font>
coolant I could hear it draining back = into my drip pan.=A0 The coolant was just running out the weep hole on the =
water pump.
=A0
I would like to know if anyone else ha= s had=A0problems with water pumps=A0and any comments.
=A0
Mike Perry
N981MP
Long Ez
=A0
=A0
=A0
=A0
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 9:16 AM=
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced land= ings

Dave,
=A0
I have decided to take Al's suggestion and=A0limit=A0the criteria = for the spreadsheet to basically include any in-flight system failure which= interrupts the planned flight and results in a premature landing.=A0 Based= on this, I will add #3 & #4 as well as the one=A0resulting from=A0a ru= ptured coolant hose.=A0
=A0
Mark S.

On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 7:55 AM, David Leonard <wdleo= nard@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark, And did you get these?=A0 Added by me and John Slade under the w= rong 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 collapse= d & took out apex seal. Flew home at reduced power.
=A0
2. Fuel f= iler (sinstered bronze) looked clean but was restricting fuel flow. Flew ho= me on other tank.
=A0
3. Bad / intermittent contact on ignition timing sensor made engine = run rough. Landed normally and repaired.
=A0
4. Turbo hose blew off o= n take-off. Returned to land at reduced power.
John
------=A0
=A0=
Been there, done that. (the blown-off intake hose)
=A0
Also:

I have burned out 2 turbos.=A0 The first caused precautionary/urgent l= anding at an airport pending shutting off fuel flow to the turbo.=A0 The se= cond, I flipped a turbo oil shut off switch and flew 1000NM to get home.
=A0
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 p= hase one flying (after major change)...=A0 landed normally=A0

Forgot to re-connect fuel return line in engine bay after doing so= me work.=A0 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.=A0 Would have lost cooling and alternator if it happened now.<= /div>

PSRU sun gear pin broke from a backfire during run-up= .=A0 Was able to taxi back but would not have been able to fly.
=A0
<= /div>
This is good - broke a coolant line in flight and smelled coolan= t...=A0 landed at nearby airport and taxied up to restaurant with steam spe= wing out of the cowl.=A0 Me and my buddy calmly walked into the restaurant = and had breakfast.=A0 Afterward, we borrowed some tools and fixed the coola= nt line.=A0 Went back into the restaurant to ask for 2 pitchers of water to= put in our plane.=A0 Continued ski trip to Mammoth.=A0 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 <msteit= le@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Bill,

With the addition of Bill's exci= ting adventure, and one of my own, we're up to 18 incidents in the data= base.=A0 These last two, along with Ed's brake fire, and an oil coolant= rupture, totals four incidents involving fires during ground operations.= =A0 Hopefully, everyone carries at least one fire extinguisher in their air= plane.

Mark S.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill Schertz <wsch= ertz@comcast.net> wrote:
One other thing to watch out for -- Th= is occurred during ground testing, but if it had happened in the air it wou= ld have been a forced landing.
=A0
From=A0 my post of Feb. 8
Well, I haven't heard of this happ= ening before -- I was ground running my engine to=A0 tune it with the EM-2 = and EC-2.=A0 Ran for almost an hour, at various rpm's to change the man= ifold 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.
=A0
Engine was running good, took it up to= ~6000 rpm swinging a 76x76 Catto prop, when suddenly there was steam and f= luid on my windshield. Shut it down by killing power to the EC-2. Coolant e= verywhere.
=A0
Got out and looked to diagnose the pro= blem -- NOT my plumbing.=A0 A FREEZE PLUG in the iron housing had blown out= . Rapid coolant dump.
=A0
Secondary effect -- Since I shut down = suddenly from full tilt, either the proximity of the cowl to the exhaust, o= r possibly some of the coolant on the exhaust started a small fire on my co= wl. Put it out with extinguisher, but corner is charred.
=A0
Now in repair mode.
=A0
--------------------------
Update since this incident:=A0 All fre= eze 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.
=A0
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings

Charlie,

That's a very good point.=A0 I'm trying to stay a= way from assigning a "cause" for whatever happened because I don&= #39;t have all the facts.=A0 I have a field that says "Explanation of = Failure".=A0 Hopefully, we can make statements as you suggest.=A0 Some= times, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time they attributed the engine= failure to the builder removing the oil injection pump.=A0 Also, I doubt t= hat we could all agree on a "single cause" for each failure.=A0 M= aybe it is due to a poor weld, or wrong choice of material, or improper str= ain relief, or lack of heat shielding, or a little of each.=A0 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.=A0

List is at 16 now.=A0 Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy n= ight" story to the list?=A0

Mark =A0=A0

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think that it's just as important to understand the real cause o= f 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 melt= ed', even though there are tens of thousands of the same sensor in use = in boating, a much more severe environment.=20


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 <alwick@juno.com>=20

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

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

Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not forced. Becaus= e all things are shades of grey. Instead rate the severity. So it's a 1= 0 if the guy had to glide, it's=A0a 1 if he did precautionary landing. = If you also explain what happened, then a reader can easily tell you were o= bjective in your rating.

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 regist= ered with rotary engine in 2005. You can guess that equals 70 hours each. E= ven though it's a wild assed guess, it will still be excellent predicto= r of change over time. Each year you have the same "error". So yo= ur numbers WILL reflect improvement.

More important than anything. If you can force your self to say: "T= hat same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look at &= quot;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 f= uel to boil out of carb. These have the same=A0root cause. You don't wa= nt 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 he= re, 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 i= t. Your risk isn't some new cause. It's 1 of those 10 incidents tha= t you rationalized away, instead of saying:" that will happen to me to= o."

Good stuff.


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

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

Mike,
Has anyone ever tried to document the rotary incidents resulting in a forc= ed landing?

Here's what I recall from memory, so it likely is missing a few;=A0
=A0=A0=A0 3 forced landings due to ruptured oil coolers
=A0=A0= =A0 1 forced landing due to apex seal coming out of its slot (rotor out of = spec)
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced landing due to improper assembly of engine (sea= l wedged between rotor & side housing)
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced landing on highway due to catastrophic overheating of en= gine
=A0=A0=A0 2 forced landings (one fatal) due to probable fuel system= design flaw=A0
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced landing on highway due to ingestion = of FOD.=A0

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 her= e.=A0

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 roo= m for improvement in the peripheral department.=A0 The good news is that ou= t of all of the incidents listed above, none of them were caused by a true = engine failure.=A0 That's where the rotary has really earned my respect= as a viable a/c engine.

Pay attention to the details!

Mark S.


On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike= @cox.net> wrote:
This has been an interesting thread. I= n the end, it doesnt really matter how many "major" parts you hav= e - even a minor failure can bring you down. While I believe the basic rota= ry 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 i= nstall. Since we rotary fliers dont have the benefit of 70 years worth of e= xperience flying behind the typical LyCon farm implement I think overall ou= r odds are considerably worse. Comes down to how well an individual enginee= r's his installation and there is a tremendous amount of variation here= .
=A0
The dependence on electronics in the t= ypical rotary install=A0 is a good example. I may be a little=A0sensitive t= o this issue since I've been trying to find an intermittent glitch (2 t= imes in 22 hours of engine testing).
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW=A0=A0
<= /div>
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engine= s

Good analysis and logic, Gary.

=A0

You=92d make a good addition to the= =93rotary community=94.=A0 I have noticed over the 10 years I have been fl= ying 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 {:>).=A0 = I believe most of this improvement can be attributed to folks sharing their= knowledge, problems and solutions with others - such as on this list.=A0 <= /span>

=A0

I know that fewer parts count is of= ten touted as one of the rotary benefit =96 and while it is true that the p= art 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 n= ot 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 stre= ss points.=A0 The thing is over 3=94 in diameter at some points and does no= t have the same inertia loads born by a piston crankshaft.=A0 The parts tha= t are there are of very robust design.=A0 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.=A0 Only = extended time and numbers will provide the true MTBF for the rotary, but I = believe it looks very promising.

=A0

Failure of rotary engines are extre= mely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installations= , auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off d= esigns have been the cause of most failures =96 with probably fuel the prim= e culprit.=A0 The good news is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we= have pretty much established what will make an installation successful.=A0= The Canard crowd is fast approaching that status with their somewhat more = challenging cooling requirements being over come.

=A0

=A0 Having lost a rotor during flig= ht 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 thi= s spec limit and checking it) which led to apex seal failure and consequenc= e lost of most of the power from one rotor, I was still able to maintain 65= 00 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture knob to full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH =96 a= lot of it undoubtedly =A0being blown through the disabled rotor.=A0 Flew i= t back 60 miles to a suitable runway and made a non-eventful landing.=A0=A0= 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 th= e gauges.=A0 Other folks have had FOD damage to a rotor and also make it to= a safe landing.=A0 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.=A0 So all things considered, I think the rotary continu= es to show that if the installation is designed properly, it makes a very v= iable and reliable aircraft power plant.

=A0

Failure of rotary engines in aircra= ft are extremely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine i= nstallations, auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently bei= ng one-off designs - have been the cause of most failures.=A0 The good news= is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much establish= ed what will make an installation successful.=A0 The Canard crowd is fast a= pproaching that status with their somewhat more challenging cooling require= ments being over come.

=A0

My rotary installation cost me $650= 0 back in 1996, the primary cost being a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU = $2900.=A0 I have since purchased a 1991 turbo block engine from Japan for $= 900 and rebuilt it myself for another $2200. =A0My radiators (GM evaporator= cores) cost $5.00 from the junk yard and another $50.00 each for having th= e bungs welded on.=A0 So depending on how much you buy and how much you bui= ld the price can vary considerably.=A0 Today, I would say it would take a m= inimum of around $8000 and more nominally around $10000 for a complete rota= ry installation in an RV =96 some folks could do it for less, some for more= .

=A0

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

=A0

1.=A0 What is your risk tolerance?= =A0 It doesn=92t really matter how sexy some =93exotic=94 engine installati= on may seem =96 if you are not comfortable flying behind (or in front) of i= t, then it certainly does not =A0makes sense to go that route.=A0 After all= , this is supposed to have an element of fun and enjoyment to it.

=A0

2.=A0 What is your knowledge, exper= ience and background (and you don=92t have to be an engineer) and do you fe= el comfortable with the level of involvement needed.

=A0

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

=A0

=A0

Best Regards

=A0

Ed

=A0

=A0

From: Rota= ry motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Casey
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2= 009 8:36 AM
To: Rotary m= otors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines



The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.<= br>

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



<= /blockquote>




--
David Leonard

Tur= bo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net


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


--0015174c368e9a4be60467838707--