X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.123] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3577027 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:31:39 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.123; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from computername ([75.191.186.236]) by cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com with ESMTP id <20090410213058.PCAO2520.cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com@computername> for ; Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:30:58 +0000 From: "Ed Anderson" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:31:13 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001B_01C9BA02.256C8660" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: Acm6D601MHWtu920RoqOdAvQnDnJLQAEwdhg Message-Id: <20090410213058.PCAO2520.cdptpa-omta04.mail.rr.com@computername> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C9BA02.256C8660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ok, Mark, Yes, engineers can get anal about details. But, they sometimes forget the rotary is not a piston engine {:>) Looks like my fame has preceded me, yes, so long as its cold, hot, or luke warm {:>). The Hobbs reads 530 hrs but flying hour are around 450 or so. Had about 160 hrs on the original N/A 86 13B before I decided to switch to the current 1991 turbo block. So around 290 hrs on the turbo block - this was the one I put the high compression rotors with the worn apex seal slots in and had one fail on way to Sun & Fun in 2005. Did a hasty (too hasty) rebuild and got an apex seal part jammed between rotor and side housing leading to localized overheating and coolant "O" ring failure in that area (due to way high temps - the metal turned blue) which resulted in a rebuild in Louisiana in Summer 2005 after the brake fire. But did it correctly that time in my brother in laws abandon garage with Tracy and Laura shipping parts to rotary -no-man-land. Yes, I still hold the record (will it never be broken?) for the most mishaps - or almost mishaps with a flying rotary. Got the award from RWS to prove it {:>) Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 3:07 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines Ed, His point was that there are more than four moving parts in a 3-rotor engine. If I had known that an engineer would be responding, I would have been more precise. ;-) And thanks for pointing out that while a single rotor has many small pieces, it does the work of three pistons. Next time I will mention that fact. How many "rotary hours" do you have on your RV now, and how many hours on the newest engine? How's it running? Glad to hear you're planning on attending the fly-in. I'd ask you what brand of beer you drink, but I've heard that you'll pretty much drink anything as long as it is cold. ;-) Mark S. On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Ed Anderson wrote: Hi Mark, I can understand being conservative - particularly in a Lancair - dead sticking an RV into a field is one thing, doing it with a Lancair is not something I would care to do. Well, being an engineer then Gary can pretty much see the advantages of the rotary - but, as I noted his claim of "more parts on a rotor than a piston" needs to be seen in the context of a rotor really being equivalent of three pistons - then the part difference is not what it first appears. Yes, my plans are to attend, hopefully everything will work out and I'll see you there again. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 10:39 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines Thanks Ed. The Lancair bunch tend to be pretty conservative when it comes to their choice of engines. They can think of a hundred reasons why it is better to go with a certified engine, all of them based on the past 100 years. ;-) Gary is a very sharp engineer, so I need to be careful what claims I make because he will be checking to see if I'm embellishing the facts, not that I would ever do that, mind you. Are you planning on attending the Texas roundup in May? It would be good to talk to you again. Bobby hopes to have his supercharged RV-10 flying by then (dependent on Tracy getting the mods finished to his EC-2). I plan to be there as will Dennis H. and a number of others. It should be fun. Mark On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: Good run down, Mark. Gary does mention the numerous parts on the rotor itself - and while each rotor does have a high part count, you have to consider that each rotor is the equivalent of 3 pistons - so in that context the parts count is actually lower, not higher - its very seldom you ever hear of any failure of rotor parts other than the occasional apex seal - wear yes, failure - seldom. plus I have never heard of a rotor coming through the block {:>) So, good questions and good answers from you. One saying does come to mind - from our good friend, Tracy Crook. ".If you're asking if you should do it, you probably shouldn't. If you should be doing it, nobody can talk you out of it..". For 90% of homebuilders, its probably not appropriate. Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com http://www.andersonee.com http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html http://www.flyrotary.com/ http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm _____ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 9:26 AM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines Gary, Thanks for adding a more technical tone to this discussion. Yes, I was not accounting for all the misc pieces needed to make the rotary run, but then I wasn't considering all the little pieces needed to make a conventional piston engine run either. Of the pieces that normally fail and end up poking out through the engine case, I think you'll agree that the rotary has significantly fewer of those. In fact, I have never seen a rotary with a thrown connecting rod. ;-) Having a liquid cooling system is a two-edged sword, but its not anything that can't be overcome with good engineering. For coolant lines on my installation I used aluminum tubing connected to the engine and radiator via "Wiggins" couplings. I monitor coolant pressure, coolant level, and coolant temperature. Of course, if I catch a Canadian goose in the radiator, it will likely loose its ability to cool the engine, but then you have the same risk with an air-cooled engine. As for the bsfc, do your numbers reflect the modern EFI systems, or carbureted engines. Tracy Crook realized a significant improvement in bsfc when he switched from carburetors to EFI. The new "Renesis" rotary engine has a better bsfc due to the side exhaust ports. Anyway, I prefer to consider it in "dollars per air-mile". By the time you factor in the cost savings for purchasing and maintaining a rotary engine over a certified engine, and that the rotary runs happily (prefers) on 89 UL fuel (half the cost of avgas), the cost per mile tips significantly in favor of the rotary. (Reading the recent post about the $2300.00 oil pan practically brought tears to my eyes.) I guess its the German in me that caused me to seek out something better, or different. Ahhhh... you mentioned the magic word, "turbo-charger". I built my engine with the intention of turbo-charging as it was initially turbo-charged in its former life. After much thought, I decided to follow the KISS principle and go N/A. But there's a little voice in my head that keeps whispering "turbo-charge". With the rotary's high energy exhaust gasses, turbo's are a natural solution. Yes they add weight, but not much more than my current exhaust system. Stay tuned... One thing that I hadn't mentioned that could be considered a negative for the rotary engine is that very few A&P's know anything about rotary engines. Heck, very few auto mechanics know how to work on a rotary engine. But, if I'm there with my repairman's certificate in hand, who needs an A&P? Also, rotary parts are less plentiful if you get stuck in some hole-in-the-wall town. But there is always UPS overnight. Gary, thanks again for your thoughtful post. I'm not trying to convert anyone to a rotary engine, I only want to see it get a fair shake. Mark S. P.S. I've CC'd the Fly Rotary group as they need something to talk about (the list has been rather quiet lately). On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Gary Casey wrote: I'll certainly have to commend Mark on the great work with the rotary engine. I agree with his comments on almost every count. But... You probably should count ALL the parts in and around the engine to have a fair comparison. For example, the air-cooled aircraft engine cooling system has essentially no moving parts, unless you count the vernitherm. Yes, the 3-rotor engine has only 4 MAJOR moving parts, but each rotor has about 50 components. While that's not necessarily good or bad, it's not an inherently simple solution. It rejects more heat to the coolant and more of that to the oil (rotors are oil-cooled), making the cooling system larger and potentially more complex. And the exhaust is hotter and contains more aggressive pressure pulses, which have to be taken care of by some sort of muffling. The ideal muffler is probably a turbocharger, which can work very well on account of the pressure pulses, but it probably takes a special high-temperature turbo that can tolerate the up-to 2000 degree exhaust. The turbo adds weight and complexity, but perhaps not more weight than an effective muffler. The fact that the engine is inherently round and concentric with the output shaft is a good thing, but probably more attractive for a wing-mounted engine than one in front of the fuselage. The rotary engine almost requires a speed reduction unit to make the power/weight come out favorable, and I was not impressed with the design of the then-currently available units, although they seem to work okay in practice. One big thing that bothered me is that the efficiency is inherently lower than that of a good piston engine, partly because the compression ratio is limited to less than about 9 and the surface-volume ratio the combustion chamber is higher. This penalty is probably 5 to 10%. All that being said, the big attraction to me was, as Mark said, the rotary will rarely completely fail, even if the coolant is lost. The apex seals might disintegrate and parts warp, but it will most likely continue to produce power for some time, unlike a piston engine. A long time ago we were testing many rotaries and occasionally we would see a loss in power. When the engine was shut down it welded itself together even though it was still producing power. And the very things that make it less efficient contribute to the fact that it can tolerate a variety of fuels. And with boosting it can be made to produce a lot of reliable power. I seriously looked at 3 different approaches - a standard aircraft engine, a direct-drive automotive piston engine, and a rotary. The eventual deciding factors were that the automotive engine came out heavy and the rotary engine burned more fuel. I really do like the rotary, though. Gary _____ From: Mark Steitle To: Lancair_ES@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2009 2:27:21 PM Subject: Re: [Lancair_ES] Rotary Engines Dave, Since there were no other replies, I figured I would give my 2-cents worth. I have been flying a 3-rotor Lancair ES for almost 2 years now with a total of 110 hrs on the Hobbs. While it hasn't been without some teething pains, all-in-all, it has been a very positive experience and I would choose a rotary again if/when the opportunity presents itself. While I did the FWF myself, my installation and the Mistral are both closely related. As an example, I could bolt a Mistral intake and/or exhaust directly to my engine, and probably interchange many parts with the Mistral 3-rotor. The Mistral folks have taken much of the rotary engine technology, and refined and pakaged it into a (soon to be) certified product. My reasoning is based on my belief that the rotary is inheretly a stronger engine (pistons are cast iron vs. aluminum), with only 4 moving parts. If you read the recent AOPA story about the Cessna 400 blowing an engine over Pennsylvania in the night, well, I had a similar experience in a Cessna 152, only not at night. Like the chap in the AOPA story, we too just barely made it to the nearest airport, with oil pouring out from the cowl onto the runway. Since that incident, I have been very leery of all conventional piston engines. Hence my decision to go with a rotary. Gross weight on my ES was 2060 lbs. I typically climb out at 7000 - 7200 rpm (2400 - 2500 prop rpm), climbing at between 1000 fpm and 1300 fpm, burning 16 - 18 gph, 15 gph in regular cruise (6000 rpm) and around 10 -12 gph in economy cruise (5100 rpm). (Keep in mind that the pistons (rotors) turn at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft, so they are only turning 1733 rpm in economy cruise.) I can run either 100LL or mogas (w/o alcohol) without worry and can lean the mixture aggressively without worry of hurting the engine (no exhaust valves to burn). I can pull the throttle to idle whenever and not risk shock cooling the engine. Being fuel-injected, it will start cold, hot, or anywhere in between. What's not to love? I mentioned some teething pains... those consisted of an early cooling problem which was solved with an auxilary water-to-oil exchanger and a cowl flap. I have also had a series of oil leaks, all from the oil pan not being properly sealed. I finally pulled the pan, cleaned and resealed it. Problem solved. The toughest issue to resolve has been finding a muffler that could withstand the pounding of the rotary's exhaust. I'm pretty sure that issue has been resolved by switching to a DNA racing muffler, but I don't have enough hours on it yet to state for certain. Hopes this helps answer your question(s). Mark S. __._,_.___ Messages in this topic (5) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic Messages | Files | Photos | Links | Database | Polls | Members | Calendar To Post a message to the group, send it to: Lancair_ES@YahooGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: Lancair_ES-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com If you have questions for the group administrator, send it to: Lancair_ES-owner@YahooGroups.com Yahoo! Groups Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity Visit Your Group Give Back Yahoo! for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Yahoo! Groups Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . __,_._,___ ------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C9BA02.256C8660 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ok, = Mark,

 

Yes, engineers can get anal about = details.  But, they sometimes forget the rotary is not a piston engine = {:>)  Looks like my fame has preceded me, yes, so long as its cold, hot, or = luke warm {:>).

 

The Hobbs reads 530 hrs but flying = hour are around 450 or so.  Had about 160 hrs on the original N/A 86 13B = before I decided to switch to the current 1991 turbo block.  So around 290 = hrs on the turbo block – this was the one I put the high compression = rotors with the worn apex seal slots in and had one fail on way to Sun & Fun in = 2005. Did a hasty (too hasty) rebuild and got an apex seal part jammed between = rotor and side housing leading to localized overheating and coolant = “O” ring failure in that area (due to way high temps – the metal = turned blue) which resulted in a rebuild in Louisiana in Summer 2005 after the brake = fire.  But did it correctly that time in my brother in laws abandon garage with = Tracy and Laura shipping parts to rotary = –no-man-land.

 

 Yes, I still hold the record = (will it never be broken?) for the most mishaps – or almost mishaps with = a flying rotary.  Got the award from RWS to prove it = {:>)

 

 

Ed

 

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark Steitle
Sent: Friday, April 10, = 2009 3:07 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines

 

Ed,

 

His point was that there are more than four moving parts in a = 3-rotor engine.  If I had known that an engineer would be responding, I = would have been more precise.  ;-)

 

And thanks for pointing out that while a single rotor has many = small pieces, it does the work of three pistons.  Next time I = will mention that fact. 

 

How many "rotary hours" do you have on your RV now, = and how many hours on the newest engine?  How's it running?  =

 

Glad to hear you're planning on attending the fly-in.  I'd = ask you what brand of beer you drink, but I've heard that you'll pretty much = drink anything as long as it is cold.  ;-)

 

Mark S.



 

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t; wrote:

Hi Mark,

 

I can understand being conservative – = particularly in a Lancair – dead sticking an RV into a field is one thing, doing it = with a Lancair is not something I would care to = do.

 

Well, being an engineer then Gary can pretty much see = the advantages of the rotary – but, as I noted his claim of = “more parts on a rotor than a piston” needs to be seen in the context of a = rotor really being equivalent of three pistons – then the part = difference is not what it first appears.

 

Yes, my plans are to attend, hopefully everything will = work out and I’ll see you there again.

 

Ed

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark = Steitle
Sent: Friday, April 10, = 2009 10:39 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines

 

Thanks Ed.  The Lancair bunch tend to be pretty conservative when it comes = to their choice of engines.  They can think of a hundred reasons why = it is better to go with a certified engine, all of them based on the past 100 years.  ;-)

 

Gary is a very sharp engineer, so I need to be careful what claims I make because = he will be checking to see if I'm embellishing the facts, not that I would ever = do that, mind you.

 

Are you planning on attending the Texas roundup in May?  It would be good to talk to you again.  Bobby hopes to have his supercharged RV-10 flying by = then (dependent on Tracy getting the mods finished to his EC-2).  I plan to be there as will = Dennis H. and a number of others.  It should be = fun.

 

Mark

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:

Good run down, Mark.

 

Gary does mention the numerous parts on the rotor  itself – and while each rotor does have a high part count, = you have to consider that each rotor is the = equivalent of 3 pistons – so in that context the parts count is = actually lower, not higher – its very seldom you ever hear of any failure = of rotor parts other than the occasional apex seal  – wear yes, = failure – seldom.   plus I have never heard of a rotor coming = through the block {:>)   So, good questions and good answers from = you.

 

One saying does come to mind – from our good = friend, Tracy Crook.  “…If you’re asking if you should do it, you probably shouldn’t. = If you should be doing it, nobody can talk you out of = it..”.  For 90% of homebuilders, its probably not = appropriate.

 

Ed

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Mark = Steitle
Sent: Friday, April 10, = 2009 9:26 AM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [Lancair_ES] Re: Rotary Engines

 

Gary, =

 

Thanks for adding a more technical tone to this discussion.  Yes, I was = not accounting for all the misc pieces needed to make the rotary run, but = then I wasn't considering all the little pieces needed to make a conventional = piston engine run either.  Of the pieces that normally fail and end up = poking out through the engine case, I think you'll agree that the rotary has = significantly fewer of those.  In fact, I have never seen a rotary with a thrown connecting rod.  ;-)

 

Having a liquid cooling system is a two-edged sword, but its not anything = that can't be overcome with good engineering.  For coolant lines on my installation I used aluminum tubing connected to the engine and radiator via "Wiggins" couplings.  I = monitor coolant pressure, coolant level, and coolant temperature.  Of course, if I = catch a Canadian goose in the radiator, it will likely loose its ability to cool = the engine, but then you have the same risk with an air-cooled engine.  =

As for the bsfc, do your numbers reflect the modern EFI systems, or = carbureted engines.  Tracy Crook realized a significant improvement in = bsfc when he switched from carburetors to EFI.  The new = "Renesis" rotary engine has a better bsfc due to the side exhaust ports.  Anyway, I prefer to consider it in "dollars per air-mile".  By the time you factor = in the cost savings for purchasing and maintaining a rotary engine over a certified engine, and that the rotary runs happily (prefers) on 89 = UL fuel (half the cost of avgas), the cost per mile tips significantly in = favor of the rotary.  (Reading the recent post about the $2300.00 oil pan practically brought tears to = my eyes.)  I guess its the German in me that caused me to seek out something better, or different.  =

 

Ahhhh... you mentioned the magic word, "turbo-charger".  I built = my engine with the intention of turbo-charging as it was = initially turbo-charged in its former life.  After much thought, = I decided to follow the KISS principle and go N/A.  But there's a = little voice in my head that keeps whispering "turbo-charge".  = With the rotary's high energy exhaust gasses, turbo's are a natural = solution.  Yes they add weight, but not much more than my current exhaust system.  Stay tuned...

 

One thing that I hadn't mentioned that could be considered a negative for the = rotary engine is that very few A&P's know anything about rotary = engines.  Heck, very few auto mechanics know how to work on a rotary engine.  = But, if I'm there with my repairman's certificate in hand, who needs an A&P?  Also, rotary parts are less plentiful if you get stuck in = some hole-in-the-wall town.  But there is always UPS overnight.  =

 

Gary, = thanks again for your thoughtful post.  I'm not trying to convert anyone to a rotary engine, I only want to see it get a fair shake.  

 

Mark S.

 

P.S.  I've CC'd the Fly Rotary group as they need something to talk about (the = list has been rather quiet lately).

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com> = wrote:

 

I'll certainly have to commend Mark on the = great work with the rotary engine.  I agree with his comments on almost every = count.  But...

You probably should count ALL the parts in = and around the engine to have a fair comparison.  For example, the air-cooled aircraft engine cooling system has essentially no moving parts, unless = you count the vernitherm.  Yes, the 3-rotor engine has only 4 MAJOR = moving parts, but each rotor has about 50 components.  While that's not necessarily good or bad, it's not an inherently simple solution. =  It rejects more heat to the coolant and more of that to the oil (rotors are oil-cooled), making the cooling system larger and potentially more = complex.  And the exhaust is hotter and contains more aggressive pressure = pulses, which have to be taken care of by some sort of muffling.  The ideal muffler is probably a turbocharger, which can work very well on account = of the pressure pulses, but it probably takes a special high-temperature turbo = that can tolerate the up-to 2000 degree exhaust.  The turbo adds weight = and complexity, but perhaps not more weight than an effective muffler. =  The fact that the engine is inherently round and concentric with the output = shaft is a good thing, but probably more attractive for a wing-mounted engine = than one in front of the fuselage.  The rotary engine almost requires a = speed reduction unit to make the power/weight come out favorable, and I was = not impressed with the design of the then-currently available units, = although they seem to work okay in practice.  One big thing that bothered me is = that the efficiency is inherently lower than that of a good piston engine, partly because the compression ratio is limited to less than about 9 and the surface-volume ratio the combustion chamber is higher.  This = penalty is probably 5 to 10%.  All that being said, the big attraction to me = was, as Mark said, the rotary will rarely completely fail, even if the coolant = is lost.  The apex seals might disintegrate and parts warp, but it will most = likely continue to produce power for some time, unlike a piston engine.  A = long time ago we were testing many rotaries and occasionally we would see a = loss in power.  When the engine was shut down it welded itself together = even though it was still producing power.  And the very things that make = it less efficient contribute to the fact that it can tolerate a variety of = fuels.  And with boosting it can be made to produce a lot of reliable = power.

 

I seriously looked at 3 different approaches = - a standard aircraft engine, a direct-drive automotive piston engine, and a rotary.  The eventual deciding factors were that the automotive = engine came out heavy and the rotary engine burned more fuel.  I really do = like the rotary, though.

Gary=

 

From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>

Sent: = Thursday, April 9, 2009 2:27:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Lancair_ES] = Rotary Engines

Dave,

 

Since there were no other replies, I figured = I would give my 2-cents worth. 

 

I have been flying a 3-rotor Lancair ES for = almost 2 years now with a total of 110 hrs on the Hobbs.  While it hasn't been without some teething pains, all-in-all, it has = been a very positive experience and I would choose a rotary again if/when the opportunity presents itself. 

 

While I did the FWF myself, my = installation and the Mistral are both closely related.  As an example, I could = bolt a Mistral intake and/or exhaust directly to my engine, and probably interchange many parts with the Mistral 3-rotor.  The Mistral folks = have taken much of the rotary engine technology, and refined = and pakaged it into a (soon to be) certified product.      =

My reasoning is based on my belief that the = rotary is inheretly a stronger engine (pistons are cast iron vs. aluminum), with  only 4 moving parts.  If you read = the recent AOPA story about the Cessna 400 blowing an engine over Pennsylvania in the night, well, I = had a similar experience in a Cessna 152, only not at night.  Like the = chap in the AOPA story, we too just barely made it to the nearest airport, = with oil pouring out from the cowl onto the runway.  Since that = incident, I have been very leery of all conventional  piston engines.  = Hence my decision to go with a rotary.  

 

Gross weight on my ES was 2060 lbs.  I = typically climb out at 7000 - 7200 rpm (2400 - 2500 prop rpm), climbing = at between 1000 fpm and 1300 fpm, burning 16 - 18 gph, 15 gph in regular = cruise (6000 rpm) and around 10 -12 gph in economy cruise (5100 rpm).  = (Keep in mind that the pistons (rotors) turn at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft, = so they are only turning 1733 rpm in economy cruise.)  I can run = either 100LL or mogas (w/o alcohol) without worry and can lean the mixture = aggressively without worry of hurting the engine (no exhaust valves to burn).  I = can pull the throttle to idle whenever  and not risk shock = cooling the engine.  Being fuel-injected, it will start cold, hot, or anywhere in between.  What's not to love?  =

 

I mentioned some teething pains... those = consisted of an early cooling problem which was solved with an auxilary water-to-oil exchanger and a cowl flap.  I have also had a series of oil leaks, = all from the oil pan not being properly sealed.  I finally pulled the = pan, cleaned and resealed  it.  Problem solved.  The toughest issue to resolve has been finding a muffler that could = withstand the pounding of the rotary's exhaust.  I'm pretty sure = that issue has been resolved  by switching to a DNA racing muffler, but I = don't have enough hours on it yet to state for = certain.

 

Hopes this helps answer your = question(s).

 

Mark S.

 

  

 

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic = (5) Reply = (via web post) | Start a new topic =

To Post a message to the group, send it = to:

Lancair_ES@YahooGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:

Lancair_ES-unsubscribe@YahooGroups.com

If you have questions for the group administrator, send it to:

Lancair_ES-owner@YahooGroups.com

Recent Activity

Visit Your Group

Give Back

Yahoo! for = Good

Get = inspired

by a good = cause.

Y! Toolbar

Get it = Free!

easy 1-click = access

to your = groups.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a = group

in 3 easy = steps.

Connect with = others.

.

__,_._,___

 

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C9BA02.256C8660--