Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2b2) with ESMTP id 3188985 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:58:06 -0400 Received: from rad ([65.0.149.119]) by imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040425045806.KTNA1781.imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net@rad> for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2004 00:58:06 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:58:07 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c42a81$e6279cc0$6001a8c0@rad> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C42A57.FD5194C0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C42A57.FD5194C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. =20 Hi Marv, =20 I think it's extremely unlikely that anyone will have a catastrophic = failure of a NA rotary below 8000 rpm. Now if you turbo it, all bets are off. = This is one of the reasons I no longer run a turbo on the plane. I can = afford to blow the FD engine, and AAA will tow it back to my house. =20 =20 You are correct about wear though, but you have to decide what you want. = I want a toy, that makes people say "Holy S***" every time I take off. = Even if it "only" lasts 1000 hours before it wears out, that's 30 years of = flying for me. The symptoms of a worn out engine are pretty benign, so when = the time comes, I just rebuild it. =20 =20 Cheers, Rusty (anybody need a turbo? anybody at all... ) =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C42A57.FD5194C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

All this talk about 2.85 gear boxes, getting higher = into the=20 power curve,
improving cliumb performance, etc, is really = interesting. =20 Since 3 of my 6
initial reasons for going rotary were reliability, = I'm=20 wondering what running
at these higher power levels is going to do in = that=20 regard.

 
Hi=20 Marv,
 
I think it's=20 extremely unlikely that anyone will have a catastrophic failure of = a NA=20 rotary below 8000 rpm.  Now if you turbo it, all bets are=20 off.  This is one of the reasons I no longer run a turbo on = the=20 plane.  I can afford to blow the FD engine, and AAA will tow = it back=20 to my house. 
 
You are = correct about=20 wear though, but you have to decide what you want.  I want a toy, = that=20 makes people say "Holy S***" every time I take off.  Even = if it=20 "only" lasts 1000 hours before it wears out, that's 30 years of flying = for=20 me.  The symptoms of a worn out engine are pretty benign, so = when the=20 time comes, I just rebuild it.  
 
Cheers,
Rusty = (anybody need a=20 turbo?  anybody at all...  <g>)  



 ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C42A57.FD5194C0--