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
|