X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao10.cox.net ([68.230.241.29] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 984493 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:07:25 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.29; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060214160454.JQI20441.fed1rmmtao10.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2006 11:04:54 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do this? Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 08:06:40 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c63180$a47f7830$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6313D.965C3830" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6313D.965C3830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A very interesting comparison would be accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines vs experimental with 'alternative' engines. Al --------------- Tracy said: Interesting, yes, but I doubt it would be encouraging. I fully = acknowledge that this is undoubtedly a relatively risky venture. =20 Yes, I suppose you are right. My initial thought was that it might not = be a big difference; suggesting that the problem is not the engine, but the balance of the installation. But the installation of a certified engine = is much more 'standard', and there are FWF packages available. But even = for the same type of 'alternative' engine it can be hard to find any standardization. =20 =20 In choosing to do this, you are betting your life that you have the necessary skills and knowledge to develop a one of a kind aircraft propulsion system - not a trivial task, and a far greater challenge than using time proven systems based on conventional aircraft engines. If you do, there is no better alternative than the Mazda rotary. =20 Right again. Before making an engine selection for my Velocity I spent = an extensive period of time on evaluation and comparison of every possible engine option; which, of course, included the certified engines. It = finally narrowed down to the 'standard' IO360, or a 3-rotor rotary. After a = period of vacillation, I finally knew that I could not be satisfied with the = old technology Lycoming on a state-of-the-art airframe. I knew that making = a gain in performance, smoothness, ease of operation, and, yes, = reliability; would be a major challenge. And I believed I had "necessary skills and knowledge" to meet that challenge. =20 There are many one-of-a-kind aspects to the installation, but at this = point it appears that the gains that I was after are/will be achieved - except = for the reliability. That has yet to be proven; and is by far the most difficult to achieve. =20 =20 Al ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6313D.965C3830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

A very interesting comparison would be accident/incident rates for = experimental with certified engines vs experimental with ‘alternative’ = engines.

Al

---------------

Tracy said:

Interesting, = yes, but I doubt it would be encouraging. I fully acknowledge that this is undoubtedly a relatively risky venture.=

Yes, I suppose you are right. My initial thought was that it might not = be a big difference; suggesting that the problem is not the engine, but the = balance of the installation. But the installation of a certified engine is = much more ‘standard’, and there are FWF packages available. = But even for = the same type of ‘alternative’ engine it can be hard to find any standardization.

In choosing to do this, you are betting your life that you have the = necessary skills and knowledge to develop a one of a kind aircraft propulsion = system - not a trivial task, and a far greater challenge than using time = proven systems based on conventional aircraft engines.

<snip>

If you do, there is no better alternative than the Mazda = rotary.

Right again. Before making an engine selection for my Velocity I spent = an extensive period of time on evaluation and comparison of every possible = engine option; which, of course, included the certified engines. It finally = narrowed down to the ‘standard’ IO360, or a 3-rotor rotary. After a = period of vacillation, I finally knew that I could not be satisfied with the = old technology Lycoming on a state-of-the-art airframe. I knew that = making a gain in performance, smoothness, ease of operation, and, yes, = reliability; would be a major challenge. And I believed I had = “necessary skills and knowledge” to meet that challenge.

There are many one-of-a-kind aspects to the installation, but at this point it appears that the gains that I was after are/will be achieved – = except for the reliability. That has yet to be proven; and is by far the most difficult to achieve.

Al

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6313D.965C3830--