Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #7582
From: sqpilot@earthlink <sqpilot@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 07:17:35 -0500
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Message
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2004 11:58 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 2.85 redrive

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.

 
Hi Marv,
 
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. 
 
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.  
 
Cheers,
Rusty (anybody need a turbo?  anybody at all...  <g>)  
 
Why....do you have another turbo?  I was considering adding one primarily for the benefit of muffling the exhaust. I was impressed when I heard John Slade's engine running with the turbo.  Very quiet. Possibly because the turbo muffles the exhaust, and then the prop finishes the job?   Paul Conner



Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster