X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:31:17 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with ESMTP id 2089355 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 11:11:34 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.132.247; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b2so97650ana for ; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:10:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=dool7VSs2mM68v0cohoD7/+nkFX1hJZG/Q1LGsoTyteaN3Buj3Dkg8Cy/zEESkjge+q7KKVbIR1azPoTSLfn4OpuIDVUAidmSEXwRguyAGsz0ux8AalNWXUS5CGsRfBkAOCthiUPwDF8YSZKwqHbTcQQfCKZbX3q+n0IfZfdwso= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=OHdHc9rcuypCnZR7ekSmBfyHMjOR0qq87AXi5Bt+BPAPljRzj8uESKcxvLZYeRPvAJWobFfy2JLMd9HoamZe4dRz/aW6YGyJzERLPFmel/S66lwqmK8+nATDm/yqHNTIQqaweKtsBc3YcOp3oK0fI6o+eEwyD+1pp5es/rK9H4c= Received: by 10.100.130.8 with SMTP id c8mr1097584and.1181229056825; Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.38.20 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2007 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Message-ID: <5cf132c0706070810r24091c96x8239b845341e7db6@mail.gmail.com> X-Original-Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:10:56 -0500 From: "Mark Steitle" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Subject: Re: [LML] Re: What's better than a Continental IO-550 fuel system? In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_58982_33222428.1181229056783" References: ------=_Part_58982_33222428.1181229056783 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Mike, I totally agree and can see your point. In comparison, over a million rotaries have been built and have seen many millions of miles in all kinds of driving conditions, and tons of miles on the racetracks of the world. Did you know that a 4-rotor Mazda won the 24-hours of Lemans in 1993? Afterwards, the engine was torn down and all the pieces were still within factory specs. After 24 hours of flat-out racing the "typical" racing engines would be ready for the scrap pile. The rotary is a very durable engine. There's the logic that if it isn't there, it can't break. Well, there are only four moving parts to the 3-rotor rotary engine. I won't list all the parts that are not necessary for a rotray engine to run, but there's a ton of stuff that can break on a typical 6-cylinder 4-stroke engine. Truthfully, what does concern me is all the ancillary systems, same as with the Lycomings and Continentals. I have worked very hard to ensure that all the other systems are up to the task at hand. As for the basic rotary engine, I feel that it is way more reliable than its certified counterparts. Mark S. (I'm not an A&P either) On 6/7/07, marv@lancair.net wrote: > > Posted for MikeEasley@aol.com: > > This is just a pilot, non A&P opinion. But I think a properly maintained > and operated IO-550 is a very reliable powerplant. When I'm crossing the > rock > pile west of Colorado Springs with solid clouds below me, I like the > long-standing track record of my Continental. It may not be perfect, but > the fleet > has a ton of hours on it. I would venture to say that the vast majority of > > bent aircraft with IO-550s in them weren't caused by the failure of the > engine. > > Mike Easley > Colorado Springs > > > > -- > > For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html > > ------=_Part_58982_33222428.1181229056783 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline
Mike,
 
I totally agree and can see your point.  In comparison, over a million rotaries have been built and have seen many millions of miles in all kinds of driving conditions, and tons of miles on the racetracks of the world.  Did you know that a 4-rotor Mazda won the 24-hours of Lemans in 1993?  Afterwards, the engine was torn down and all the pieces were still within factory specs.  After 24 hours of flat-out racing the "typical" racing engines would be ready for the scrap pile.  The rotary is a very durable engine.
 
There's the logic that if it isn't there, it can't break.  Well, there are only four moving parts to the 3-rotor rotary engine.  I won't list all the parts that are not necessary for a rotray engine to run, but there's a ton of stuff that can break on a typical 6-cylinder 4-stroke engine. 
 
Truthfully, what does concern me is all the ancillary systems, same as with the Lycomings and Continentals.  I have worked very hard to ensure that all the other systems are up to the task at hand.  As for the basic rotary engine, I feel that it is way more reliable than its certified counterparts. 
 
Mark S.
(I'm not an A&P either)

 
On 6/7/07, marv@lancair.net <marv@lancair.net> wrote:
Posted for MikeEasley@aol.com:

This is just a pilot, non A&P opinion. But I think a properly maintained
and operated IO-550 is a very reliable powerplant. When I'm crossing the
rock
pile west of Colorado Springs with solid clouds below me, I like the
long-standing track record of my Continental. It may not be perfect, but
the fleet
has a ton of hours on it. I would venture to say that the vast majority of
bent aircraft with IO-550s in them weren't caused by the failure of the
engine.

Mike Easley
Colorado Springs

 

------=_Part_58982_33222428.1181229056783--