Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.179.64.154; envelope-from=rjechtinaw@ia4u.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2)
In-Reply-To: <list-983971@logan.com>
References: <list-983971@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <80C18FDE-87D3-4209-B806-2C1E29ACE40F@ia4u.net>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: randy echtinaw <rjechtinaw@ia4u.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 06:53:15 -0500
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

I guess I look at it from a different perspective. Lycoming has had  
50 plus years to get the bugs out and get it right and they aren't  
even close. You forget, we are in the experimental / development  
stage. In 3 years we will be where Lycoming is now, 3 more years and  
we will leave them in the dust.
My $ .02 worth
Randy

On Feb 13, 2006, at 9:33 PM, Russell Duffy wrote:

>   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
>
>