X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from vms048pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.48] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 984187 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 01:44:09 -0500 Received: from [63.24.118.54] ([63.24.120.105]) by vms048.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0IUO00DXK01HSVC1@vms048.mailsrvcs.net> for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:44:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 22:44:08 -0800 From: Ken Welter Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure In-reply-to: To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1072223042==_ma============" References: --============_-1072223042==_ma============ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" > One thing my dad drilled in my head was that always have in your >mind where are you going to land when the engine quits because its >not a question of if it will happen its a question of when and that >was when we were flying certified aircraft. > >Hi Ken, > >All true of course. The big difference in the RV world is that a >Lycoming installation is totally standardized. You can buy the FWF >kit, and you don't have to do anything creative. All the components >have been tested by about 4500 people before you. In that case, >you're worried about the off chance of an actual engine failure, >which MIGHT be more likely than it is with the rotary. > >Unfortunately, we're proving almost monthly that it's far more >likely to have a problem with the rest of the installation, rather >than the actual engine. That puts any alternative engine >installation at a severe disadvantage. > >Rusty > Yes your right a Lycoming in an RV is about as proven as as a C-150 and not hardly experimental where we are really experimenting. I sure like flying with a boat hull under me as I can try new things without much worry as there is so much water down there. Ken --============_-1072223042==_ma============ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
  One thing my dad drilled in my head was that always have in your mind where are you going to land when the engine quits because its not a question of if it will happen its a question of when and that was when we were flying certified aircraft. 
 
Hi Ken,
 
All true of course. The big difference in the RV world is that a Lycoming installation is totally standardized.  You can buy the FWF kit, and you don't have to do anything creative.  All the components have been tested by about 4500 people before you.  In that case, you're worried about the off chance of an actual engine failure, which MIGHT be more likely than it is with the rotary. 
 
Unfortunately, we're proving almost monthly that it's far more likely to have a problem with the rest of the installation, rather than the actual engine.  That puts any alternative engine installation at a severe disadvantage. 
 
Rusty
 

   Yes your right a Lycoming in an RV is about as proven as as a C-150 and not hardly experimental where we are really experimenting.
  I sure like flying with a boat hull under me as I can try new things without much worry as there is so much water down there.
  Ken
--============_-1072223042==_ma============--