Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.102] (HELO ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3188947 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:07:16 -0400 Received: from nc.rr.com (cpe-024-211-178-221.nc.rr.com [24.211.178.221]) by ms-smtp-03-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id i3P47Ds1013106 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:07:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <408B34E1.5060201@nc.rr.com> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:47:45 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Marvin Kaye wrote: > All this talk about 2.85 gear boxes, getting higher into the power > curve, improving cliumb performance, etc, is really interesting. Since > 3 of my 6 initial reasons for going rotary were reliability, I'm > wondering what running at these higher power levels is going to do in > that regard. I'm pretty convinced that running at 5300-5500 rpms at > cruise is a good formula for having an engine that isn't overtaxed and > Tracy's experience has borne this out. Isn't there any concern out > there about increased wear to the rotor housings, greater potential for > catastrophic failure and so on, at these considerably higher constant > power levels? I hate to be a wet blanket, but what are the real > longterm tradeoffs in operating routinely at 15-20% higher power levels? > > > > >>> Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ >>> Archive: http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html > > The racing guys have told us that the rotary holds up well at the higher RPMs, but it is true that a rotor housing only has so many revolutions in it, so it does wear out faster. Run it at higher RPM, it doesn't last as long. The way I rationalize it is that I'll probably put in about 100hrs a year. Rebuilding at 1000hrs will give me a decade of flight. In a decade the 200 pound RX-12 engine will give me 400hp in a package that I can carry in a briefcase. I'll worry about designing a new engine mount then. Some things bother me less than others 8*) -- http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/ "Ignorance is mankinds normal state, alleviated by information and experience." Veeduber