X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:50:07 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from web81511.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.151] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.9) with SMTP id 2091170 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:38:53 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.142.199.151; envelope-from=kneadedpleasures@sbcglobal.net Received: (qmail 19134 invoked by uid 60001); 8 Jun 2007 12:38:13 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=eBWNjGjtJySAZcj46xai5OzLfJDCtVslGYh09O0yM6aUmt2FRqjYCQZtMumS+Q5LdA7+6Vy2pHkYdy6rOQH5BMweMCTTo4ljW+v7ApmqSkgOfam0cCs+bbIFhsjGtugiAq+BxpAdLuP3Dg/js7NcPkwFCfy4mM/bKpBcPzHH+x8=; X-YMail-OSG: Yn.Nyd4VM1nf39oIWbCVSFEqmandXfxEpavGdDGJFACJiijGeWtddB9le5UqRsjUqIhB9g-- Received: from [71.145.137.151] by web81511.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 08 Jun 2007 05:38:13 PDT X-Original-Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 05:38:13 -0700 (PDT) From: kneaded pleasures Subject: Rotary engines X-Original-To: List MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-93646699-1181306293=:18773" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Original-Message-ID: <828507.18773.qm@web81511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> --0-93646699-1181306293=:18773 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Mark Steitle writes, ".... As for the basic rotary engine, I feel that it is way more reliable than its certified counterparts." Perhaps true Mark, but isn't it also true that the most frequent failures of the rotary application to aircraft is the prsu? In my not-so-recent readings on this topic, many rotary-driven aircraft had crashed and very few flying rotary a/c had significant hours on the engines and aircraft. Is this still true? How many flying hours do high-time rotary aircraft now see without major overhaul of either/both the engine and prsu? Greg Nelson --0-93646699-1181306293=:18773 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Mark Steitle writes, "....  As for the basic rotary engine, I feel that it is way more reliable than its certified counterparts." 
 
Perhaps true Mark, but isn't it also true that the most frequent failures of the rotary application to aircraft is the prsu?  In my not-so-recent readings on this topic, many rotary-driven aircraft had crashed and very few flying rotary a/c had significant hours on the engines and aircraft.  Is this still true?  How many flying hours do high-time rotary aircraft now see without major overhaul of either/both the engine and prsu?       Greg Nelson
--0-93646699-1181306293=:18773--