|
|
Bernie,
Remind me to show you the souvenir from my
very early days of flying. I was practicing for the practical test with
my instructor in the club’s 152. Just as we went full-throttle
after a simulated emergency landing, at about 500’ AGL, the “certified”
engine decided it only needed three cylinders. While it was still
running, it was barely producing enough power to maintain altitude, let alone
climb. We almost had to land on a high school football field but my
instructor decided to attempt to land back at the airport. Trailing a
smoke cloud as if we were performing an airshow routine we made it to the
airport but were afraid to try for the active and so we got priority handling
and ATC’s approval to land against the traffic flow on the downwind
runway. We barely made it. The engine froze as we flared and rolled
off the runway, oil pouring from the cowl. I think that’s when I
decided that these “certified” engines aren’t all they’re
cracked up to be. Your mileage may vary.
Mark S.
From: Rotary motors in
aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of jesse farr
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006
3:16 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do
this? / was Another Rotary failure.
Bernie: You can take that to the point
you would feel like you should just get you a good Mooney and perhaps feel more
secure about it all. I know I did for many a year. You might want to check
those out being offered on eBay, in trade-a-plane and other places and
see if you can find someone to trade with; but, then again, we'd all miss your
contribution to the dream. Of course, once you are feeling secure flying
around, you will then want to start working on that "Tracy" emulation. The feeling of freedom
and blazing the trail, even if just for you and in your own hanger, is
addicting. That answer to the old age why question of because we can is still
true.
----- Original Message -----
Yes, flying is a risky
business! We all believe we have a better mousetrap, especially an engineer
with 33 years in the turbojet design business. If I had to do over, I would
copy Tracy to
nth detail since he has been very sucessful at it. My installation has worked
fine, but believe it would be safer with Tracy's
tried and proven system. My biggest disappointment has been my lack of
confidence in going distant places because I see Ed rebuilding an engine in LA,
Dave hauling an airplane back from N CA to S CA, and now Chuck for the 2nd
time. I know we can and will explain the problems. The rotary is basically a
more dependable peice of equipment, but I was more comfortable with a Lycoming
which I flew to places that were not nice to stop in such as over Mount Redoubt
and Cook's Inlet in Alaska.
It is interesting and it would be fun to have a 3 or 4 to experiment and play
around with a rotary, if you are young and energetic!
More power to all of
you who are blazing the future of aviation with alternative engines, but once
again with family and time considerations believe I would benefit from a
lycoming. Do you wish to swap out your 4 engine for a rotary Charlie? Or is
there anyone else out there with a lycoming O-320 who would like to swap installations.
|
|