Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov
Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050606114506.01dbb2f0@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 11:53:05 -0600
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
From: Bill Dube <bdube@al.noaa.gov>
Subject: Un-touched engine (was: EC2 problems - solved / rotary risks)
In-Reply-To: <list-985730@logan.com>
References: <list-985730@logan.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed


>
>
>I'm reading between the lines of Al's posts but it seems that he is 
>emphasizing the importance of leaving the engine as un-touched as 
>possible.  I once wrote an article for Light Plane World (EAA's ultralight 
>magazine back in the late 80's) and advocated the same thing after noting 
>that many Rotax failures  occurred soon after the owner opened up the 
>engine for maintenance.  Decarboning the piston ring grooves was important 
>but many builders were causing more problems than they fixed when they 
>went inside so I recommended some products and procedures that would do 
>the job without opening the engine.
>

         This is the exact reason that I would prefer to not open up my 
RX-8 engine.

         I plan to borescope it and compression test it and inspect it in 
every way I can without taking it apart. If I don't find anything wrong (or 
suspect) during these inspections, I plan to run it "un-touched" internally.

         There seems to always be something that goes amiss when you 
disassemble and reassemble an engine. A prime example is the thick front 
cover gasket versus o-ring problem.

         There is a lot to be said for, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

         Bill Dube'