Bryan,

 

OK, you switched gears on me.  I thought we were discussing rotaries, not Subarus.  (I haven't said anything about Subaru, pro or con).  Last time I checked, Subaru engines had pretty much the same number of parts as any other recip of the same cylinder count.

 

Mark S.  

 

 

 

 

On 6/8/07, Bryan Wullner <sbej@verizon.net> wrote:

With prices of Rotary and or any auto conversions and prsu you can
almost just install a good mid time certified engine or buy a new one
from Superior with a 3 year warranty. I always thought the reason for
using auto conversions was partly due to them being cheap but now
that that is going wayside what is the point.
Not that this has anything to do with Rotaries but we have 2 aircraft
with subaru engines on them in our chapter.  One crashed because the
computer that controls RPM has to be faked out to think its not
running high RPM and somehow that didnt' work, the other has less
than 40 hours on it, tried to quit in-flight once and just recently
had to be torn down and rebuilt because they found rubber and a
spring in the oil.


Bryan

On Jun 8, 2007, at 6:50 AM, kneaded pleasures wrote:

> 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


--
For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html