Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <42AD9444.3020307@nc.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:12:20 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: air cooled wankel no impossibility
References: <list-991522@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-991522@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dale Mahan wrote:

>Earnest,
>
>Thank you for telling me of all the things that are not done on the UAV
>rotary engines that contribute to low reliability and lower longevity.  Is
>there a check list of the things to be done to improve an engine and the
>difference in reliability attained thereby?  
>

Dale, everything I said was a semi-educated guess based on very little 
information provided at a website and things I have learned about 
rotaries.   There's a possibility that you could mount one on an 
ultralight and run it for years without a problem.  I'm guessing here 
again, but I doubt the company will be willing to make any claims of 
durability or reliability beyond what they put on their website (150 
endurance test).  If you called them and said that you wanted to put it 
on a manned aircraft, they would probably hang up on you immediately.  I 
can't think of any way to find out what is really in there other than 
concocting some sort of story, like maybe you want to use one in a 
go-cart, and see if they'll sell you one.

Of course, that tosses you hip deep into your very own little R&D program.

-- 
         ,|"|"|,                                    |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===----        Dyke Delta         |
        o|  d  |o          www.ernest.isa-geek.org  |