Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.72; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <43F2B306.80909@nc.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 23:50:14 -0500
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do this? / was Another Rotary failure.
References: <list-985486@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-985486@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Russell Duffy wrote:

> Whether you want to admit it or not, a well maintained certified type 
> engine is light years ahead in reliability.  Remember, while we're 
> working on ours, tinkering, modifying, etc, they're going round, and 
> round, and round the pattern without problems, day in, day out. 

Just to keep you honest, Rusty, we want to make sure we're talking 
apples all the way around.  Make it a "well maintained certified type 
engine in a proven installation" and I'll tip my hat to you.

Turbo charge...alter the ducting to cut that last pound of cooling 
drag...think up some crazy intake or exhaust...use an air conditioner 
evaporator core as an oil cooler...modify the fuel delivery system...do 
anything crazy like that to a type certified engine, and you won't be 
able to convince me that it is any more reliable than Perry Mick's 
installation 8*)  The data is out there now to make a rock solid rotary 
installation time after time, at least for certain models.  But how 
boring is that!!

Ernest (looking for group brownie points?)

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