X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-ew0-f167.google.com ([209.85.219.167] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3578334 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 14:51:38 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.219.167; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by ewy11 with SMTP id 11so2695371ewy.19 for ; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=pjVyEC7k96AJdZf4LEmaCLL2xOyeUJ6gXCP5glm1fd8=; b=hlNKNHGJEkEgr4heXnpeJArZuP7TMpNl4ob63qfdVTd8z6TYbanh9vMvf/Kq/YpmtZ hPRgOTQFiBfshg2Rfmf3OdyKRqMeP6ch2sz4NvV3hhm7T0zzZ5DqeBTs+/GgpYfY20Kc 8sPRGHTJrKG9nNm0CpM/xndKXzYqsmXy9u0Pw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=p9llKh70JeKXUtAvG5jzezpM/fceWufbi9J6HDfQpMXNhIpMziTUpDq4t0Qzx8aDAj GPj4uI4fQaw++31jU+ZGhiPi2mxihuDKMmN9Nt+RC7fymD791HY7N1/cKe04QWJNFGpk Q1kXhs9qvZ7zKZ9FiwU5OIWI9mMJFPzpkVouE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.130.14 with SMTP id c14mr2028671ebd.91.1239562260547; Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:51:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:51:00 -0500 Message-ID: <5cf132c0904121151o6f8076e9tff0a8d4b411e7c73@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c3d623787730467601486 --0015174c3d623787730467601486 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie, That's a very good point. I'm trying to stay away from assigning a "cause" for whatever happened because I don't have all the facts. I have a field that says "Explanation of Failure". Hopefully, we can make statements as you suggest. Sometimes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time they attributed the engine failure to the builder removing the oil injection pump. Also, I doubt that we could all agree on a "single cause" for each failure. Maybe it is due to a poor weld, or wrong choice of material, or improper strain relief, or lack of heat shielding, or a little of each. What I hope to accomplish is to point out areas where we need to be more careful on how we design a particular part or system. List is at 16 now. Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy night" story to the list? Mark On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charlie England wrote: > I think that it's just as important to understand the real cause of the > failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow sensor, it's highly unlikel= y > that use of the plastic sensor caused the failure; it was the use of plas= tic > in the wrong area without any protection. The homebuilder's knee-jerk > reaction is to say 'no plastic sensors because that one melted', even tho= ugh > there are tens of thousands of the same sensor in use in boating, a much > more severe environment. > > Kind of like the canard builder who tried to put fuel in a wing built wit= h > fuel-soluble foam. Obviously, it failed, but only because of the wrong > application of products, not the products themselves. > > Charlie > > ------------------------------ > *From:* al wick > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:13:00 AM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings > > Absolutely excellent Mark. I'd encourage you to get the year the incident > occured too. That will be your proof of reduced risk from things like thi= s > newsgroup. > > Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not forced. Because > all things are shades of grey. Instead rate the severity. So it's a 10 if > the guy had to glide, it's a 1 if he did precautionary landing. If you al= so > explain what happened, then a reader can easily tell you were objective i= n > your rating. > > The final piece is about how many flight hours, first flights there were. > Each year there are more engines flying, so way more likely you will hear= of > incident. A wild assed guess is ok, if you just base the guess on some > facts. For example, you could check faa database and find 100 planes > registered with rotary engine in 2005. You can guess that equals 70 hours > each. Even though it's a wild assed guess, it will still be excellent > predictor of change over time. Each year you have the same "error". So yo= ur > numbers WILL reflect improvement. > > More important than anything. If you can force your self to say: "That sa= me > failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look at "contributing > factors". Then you can dramatically reduce personal risk. Good example: W= e > had that guy that installed plastic fuel flow sensor in fuel line. It > melted, he died. Tracy just reported hot exhaust caused fuel to boil out = of > carb. These have the same root cause. You don't want to say:" I have efi, > can't happen to me". You want to say:" I expect heat will cause a failure= . > I'll put a thin ss shield here, with a bit of fibrefax glued to back. So = if > muffler fails, it won't affect....." > > Every forced landing had 10 little incidents in the past that preceded it= . > Your risk isn't some new cause. It's 1 of those 10 incidents that you > rationalized away, instead of saying:" that will happen to me too." > > Good stuff. > > > -al wick > Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru > 230+ hrs tt from Portland, Oregon > > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: Mark Steitle > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines > Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:45:24 -0500 > > Mike, > > Has anyone ever tried to document the rotary incidents resulting in a > forced landing? > > Here's what I recall from memory, so it likely is missing a few; > > 3 forced landings due to ruptured oil coolers > 1 forced landing due to apex seal coming out of its slot (rotor out o= f > spec) > 1 forced landing due to improper assembly of engine (seal wedged > between rotor & side housing) > 1 forced landing on highway due to catastrophic overheating of engine > 2 forced landings (one fatal) due to probable fuel system design flaw > 1 forced landing on highway due to ingestion of FOD. > > There were a few others, such as turbo failures which allowed for continu= ed > operation at reduced power, so we may or may not wish to include those > here. > > While a number of these incidents date back quite a few years, and we hav= e > made excellent progress, it says to me that we still have room for > improvement in the peripheral department. The good news is that out of a= ll > of the incidents listed above, none of them were caused by a true engine > failure. That's where the rotary has really earned my respect as a viabl= e > a/c engine. > > Pay attention to the details! > > Mark S. > > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills wrote: > >> This has been an interesting thread. In the end, it doesnt really matte= r >> how many "major" parts you have - even a minor failure can bring you dow= n. >> While I believe the basic rotary engine itself is more fault tolerant th= an a >> recip, the peripherals used in the typical rotary install are a lot more >> complex than a typical recip install. Since we rotary fliers dont have t= he >> benefit of 70 years worth of experience flying behind the typical LyCon = farm >> implement I think overall our odds are considerably worse. Comes down to= how >> well an individual engineer's his installation and there is a tremendous >> amount of variation here. >> >> The dependence on electronics in the typical rotary install is a good >> example. I may be a little sensitive to this issue since I've been tryin= g to >> find an intermittent glitch (2 times in 22 hours of engine testing). >> >> Mike Wills >> RV-4 N144MW >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ed Anderson >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 AM >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines >> >> Good analysis and logic, Gary. >> >> >> >> You=92d make a good addition to the =93rotary community=94. I have noti= ced over >> the 10 years I have been flying my rotary powered RV-6A that the problem= s >> have decreased considerably, the success rate and completion rate has go= ne >> up and first flights are now occurring without significant problems =96 = even >> cooling is OK {:>). I believe most of this improvement can be attribute= d to >> folks sharing their knowledge, problems and solutions with others - such= as >> on this list. >> >> >> >> I know that fewer parts count is often touted as one of the rotary benef= it >> =96 and while it is true that the part count is lower, the most signific= ant >> thing (in my opinion) is not only does the lower part count help reliabi= lity >> (if it is not there =96 it can not break), but if you look a the design = of the >> eccentric shaft (for example) you notice the absence of the jogs in a >> typical crankshaft and their stress points. The thing is over 3=94 in >> diameter at some points and does not have the same inertia loads born by= a >> piston crankshaft. The parts that are there are of very robust design. >> Finally, the rotary is (I believe) more tolerant of damage and tends to = fail >> =93gradually and gracefully=94, it can take a licking and keep on tickin= g as the >> old saying goes. Only extended time and numbers will provide the true M= TBF >> for the rotary, but I believe it looks very promising. >> >> >> >> Failure of rotary engines are extremely rare, but unfortunately, as with >> many alternative engine installations, auxiliary subsystems such as fuel= and >> ignition frequently being one-off designs have been the cause of most >> failures =96 with probably fuel the prime culprit. The good news is tha= t for >> some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much established what wi= ll >> make an installation successful. The Canard crowd is fast approaching t= hat >> status with their somewhat more challenging cooling requirements being o= ver >> come. >> >> >> >> Having lost a rotor during flight due to putting in high compression >> rotors with worn apex seal slots worn beyond specs (found this out later= =96 >> my fault for not being aware of this spec limit and checking it) which l= ed >> to apex seal failure and consequence lost of most of the power from one >> rotor, I was still able to maintain 6500 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture kno= b to >> full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH =96 a lot of it undoubtedly being blown = through >> the disabled rotor. Flew it back 60 miles to a suitable runway and made= a >> non-eventful landing. There was a small increase in vibration due to t= he >> power strokes no longer being balanced, but nothing bad and you could st= ill >> read the needles on the gauges. Other folks have had FOD damage to a ro= tor >> and also make it to a safe landing. Two folks lost cooling (one loss of >> coolant fluid , one lost of water pump) and while they did cook the engi= nes, >> both made it back to a safe landing. So all things considered, I think = the >> rotary continues to show that if the installation is designed properly, = it >> makes a very viable and reliable aircraft power plant. >> >> >> >> Failure of rotary engines in aircraft are extremely rare, but >> unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installations, auxiliary >> subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off designs - = have >> been the cause of most failures. The good news is that for some platfor= ms >> (such as the RVs) we have pretty much established what will make an >> installation successful. The Canard crowd is fast approaching that stat= us >> with their somewhat more challenging cooling requirements being over com= e. >> >> >> >> My rotary installation cost me $6500 back in 1996, the primary cost bein= g >> a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU $2900. I have since purchased a 199= 1 >> turbo block engine from Japan for $900 and rebuilt it myself for another >> $2200. My radiators (GM evaporator cores) cost $5.00 from the junk yard= and >> another $50.00 each for having the bungs welded on. So depending on how >> much you buy and how much you build the price can vary considerably. To= day, >> I would say it would take a minimum of around $8000 and more nominally >> around $10000 for a complete rotary installation in an RV =96 some folks= could >> do it for less, some for more. >> >> >> >> But, regardless of the technical merit (or not) in someone=92s mind, the >> crucial thing (in my opinion) is you need to address two personal factor= s: >> >> >> >> 1. What is your risk tolerance? It doesn=92t really matter how sexy so= me >> =93exotic=94 engine installation may seem =96 if you are not comfortable= flying >> behind (or in front) of it, then it certainly does not makes sense to g= o >> that route. After all, this is supposed to have an element of fun and >> enjoyment to it. >> >> >> >> 2. What is your knowledge, experience and background (and you don=92t h= ave >> to be an engineer) and do you feel comfortable with the level of involve= ment >> needed. >> >> >> >> So hope you continue to contribute to expanding our knowledge and >> understanding of the rotary in its application to power plant for aircra= ft. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best Regards >> >> >> >> 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 *Gary Casey >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 11, 2009 8:36 AM >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines >> >> >> >> Just to add a few more comments and answers to the several excellent >> comments posted: >> >> >> >> How many parts does it take to make a rotary rotate? Well, "parts aren'= t >> parts" in this case. Mark was right in that there are maybe 4 "major" >> components, but you have to define major. A piston engine certainly has= far >> more major parts. Is a valve a "major" part? I think so. Is a rotor >> corner button a major part? Not sure, but probably not. Is each planet >> gear in the PSRU a major part? I say yes, and the PSRU is an integral p= art >> of the rotary engine. As someone correctly pointed out, it's not how ma= ny >> parts, but the reliability of the total system that counts. Just lookin= g at >> the history of the rotary (which, from the implication of another post) = it's >> not that good, but I don't think it has anything to do with reliability = of >> the concept. It's more to do with the experimental nature of the builds= and >> installations. My original point, perhaps not well expressed is that to= say >> there are just 4 parts is an oversimplification. But let's face it, to = put >> in an engine that has had many thousands of identical predecessors is le= ss >> "experimental" than one that hasn't.. >> >> >> >> Are we ES drivers more conservative? Probably so, since the ES is >> probably one of the experimentals most similar to production aircraft, a= nd >> not just because the Columbia (can't force myself to say Cezzna :-) was = a >> derivative. Therefore, it tends to attract conservative builders and >> owners. Not surprising then that almost all ES's have traditional >> powerplants, with the most excellent exception of Mark. While there may= be >> more, I know of only two off-airport landings caused by engine failures = in >> the ES in almost 20 years of experience. One was caused by fuel starvat= ion >> right after takeoff (fatal) and one was caused by a PSRU failure in an a= uto >> engine conversion. So our old-fashioned conservative nature has served = us >> pretty well. >> >> >> >> Yes, I was assuming that the rotary had electronic fuel injection and >> ignition, but that by itself doesn't change the inherent fuel efficiency= of >> the engine. Direct injection does have a potential to improve BSFC beca= use >> the fuel charge can be stratified. It will probably decrease available >> power, though. I think the best rotary will be 5% less efficient than t= he >> "best" piston engine(same refinements added to each). But I stated that= as >> a simple disadvantage - as Mark pointed out, it isn't that simple. The >> rotary already comes configured to run on auto gas. The piston engine c= an >> also be so configured, but the compression ratio reduction would reduce = its >> BSFC and maybe durability advantage. The total operating cost is certai= nly >> significantly less if auto gas can always be used to refuel. I assumed = in >> my assessment that it will only be available 50% of the time. The real >> disadvantage, which I failed to state, is that the extra fuel required f= or a >> given mission might be 5 or 10% higher and that negated the weight >> advantage, if only for long-range flights. >> >> >> >> Is the engine less expensive? I did a thorough analysis of a direct-dri= ve >> recip auto engine installation and my conclusion was that if the auto en= gine >> were equivalent in reliability to the aircraft engine it would likely co= st >> just as much. Is the same true of the rotary? I'm not sure, but you ha= ve >> to consider the total cost, including engineering of all the parts in th= e >> system, not just the core engine. I would love to do a rotary installat= ion, >> but I don't think I could justify it by cost reduction. >> >> >> >> It wasn't mentioned in the posts, but some have claimed the rotary is >> "smoother" than a recip. I at first resisted that notion. Sure, any ro= tary >> given sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly balanced. A 4-cylinder >> opposed recip is not - there is a significant secondary couple. The >> 6-cylinder opposed engine is perfectly balanced, but only for PRIMARY an= d >> SECONDARY forces and couples - higher order forces have never really bee= n >> analyzed, although they would be very small. And then consider the forc= es >> within the engine that have to be resisted by that long, heavy, but flex= ible >> crankshaft. So it isn't the mechanical balance that gives the rotary an >> advantage. Let's take a look at the the torsional pulsations, comparing= the >> 3-rotor against the 6-cylinder: A 6-cylinder engine has 3 power impulse= s >> per rotation, as does the 3-rotor, so they are the same, right? Wrong. >> They both incorporate 4 "stroke" cycles, meaning that there separate an= d >> sequential intake, compression, power and exhaust events so that is the = same >> for both. The power event, which is the source of the torque impulse, t= akes >> 1/2 of a crank rotation for the recip. In the rotary the power event >> requires 1/4 of a ROTOR rotation, but the rotor rotates at 1/3 crank >> rotation - the result is that the power impulse lasts 3/4 of a CRANK >> rotation, 50% longer than in a recip. Therefore, the torsional excitati= on >> delivered to the propeller, PSRU and to the airframe is significantly le= ss >> than for a recip. And if you analyze the actual forces imparted, they g= o >> down by the square of the rpm. The torsional vibration amplitude goes d= own >> by a factor of 4 just because the rpm of the rotary turns about twice as >> fast. If you've skipped to the bottom of the paragraph, as you probably >> should have :-), yes the rotary is "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my >> apologies to rotary purists, for simplicity I used the word "crankshaft"= for >> both engines) >> >> >> >> But just because you can burn auto gas should you? The biggest problems >> with auto gas in recip aircraft have nothing to do with the engine, but = with >> the high vapor pressure of the fuel - it is more prone to vapor lock. T= he >> fuel systems of certified aircraft are not particularly well designed wi= th >> regard to vapor lock. "Fortunately", rotary engines typically have no >> mechanical fuel pump and are forced to rely on electric pumps. Fortunat= ely >> because the pumps can be located at the very bottom of the aircraft and >> close to the fuel tanks, making vapor lock much less likely. I would >> caution any builders to consider vapor lock possibilities very seriously= , >> much more so if you intend to run auto gas. when I was going to do this= I >> planned to put one electric pump in the wing root of each wing, feeding = the >> engine directly(the check valve in the non-running pump prevents >> back-feeding). Redundancy was by a "crossfeed" line that could connect = the >> tanks together. >> >> >> >> And thanks, Mark for - probably incorrectly - referring to me as a "good >> engineer". I'll have to put that in my resume! >> >> >> >> Have a good day, >> >> Gary >> >> (do you allow us outsiders in your events? I'll park well away :-) >> >> >> >> >> >> >> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus >> signature database 3267 (20080714) __________ >> >> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. >> >> http://www.eset.com/ >> >> > --0015174c3d623787730467601486 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Charlie,

That's a very good point.=A0 I'm trying to stay awa= y from assigning a "cause" for whatever happened because I don= 9;t have all the facts.=A0 I have a field that says "Explanation of Fa= ilure".=A0 Hopefully, we can make statements as you suggest.=A0 Someti= mes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time they attributed the engine f= ailure to the builder removing the oil injection pump.=A0 Also, I doubt tha= t we could all agree on a "single cause" for each failure.=A0 May= be it is due to a poor weld, or wrong choice of material, or improper strai= n relief, or lack of heat shielding, or a little of each.=A0 What I hope to= accomplish is to point out areas where we need to be more careful on how w= e design a particular part or system.=A0

List is at 16 now.=A0 Anyone else want to add a "dark and stormy n= ight" story to the list?=A0

Mark =A0=A0

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.ne= t> wrote:
I think that it's just as important to understand the real cause of = the failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow sensor, it's highly u= nlikely that use of the plastic sensor caused the failure; it was the use o= f plastic in the wrong area without any protection. The homebuilder's k= nee-jerk reaction is to say 'no plastic sensors because that one melted= ', even though there are tens of thousands of the same sensor in use in= boating, a much more severe environment.

Kind of like the canard builder who tried to put fuel in a wing built w= ith fuel-soluble foam. Obviously, it failed, but only because of the wrong = application of products, not the products themselves.

Charlie

<= b>From: al wick <alwick@juno.com>

To: Rotary motors in a= ircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:13:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: f= orced landings

Absolutely excellent Mark. I'd encourage you to get the year the inc= ident occured too. That will be your proof of reduced risk from things like= this newsgroup.

Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not forced. Becaus= e all things are shades of grey. Instead rate the severity. So it's a 1= 0 if the guy had to glide, it's=A0a 1 if he did precautionary landing. = If you also explain what happened, then a reader can easily tell you were o= bjective in your rating.

The final piece is about how many flight hours, first flights there were= . Each year there are more engines flying, so way more likely you will hear= of incident. A wild assed guess is ok, if you just base the guess on some = facts. For example, you could check faa database and find 100 planes regist= ered with rotary engine in 2005. You can guess that equals 70 hours each. E= ven though it's a wild assed guess, it will still be excellent predicto= r of change over time. Each year you have the same "error". So yo= ur numbers WILL reflect improvement.

More important than anything. If you can force your self to say: "T= hat same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look at &= quot;contributing factors". Then you can dramatically reduce personal = risk. Good example: We had that guy that installed plastic fuel flow sensor= in fuel line. It melted, he died. Tracy just reported hot exhaust caused f= uel to boil out of carb. These have the same=A0root cause. You don't wa= nt to say:" I have efi, can't happen to me". You want to say:= " I expect heat will cause a failure. I'll put a thin ss shield he= re, with a bit of fibrefax glued to back. So if muffler fails, it won't= affect....."

Every forced landing had 10 little incidents in the past that preceded i= t. Your risk isn't some new cause. It's 1 of those 10 incidents tha= t you rationalized away, instead of saying:" that will happen to me to= o."

Good stuff.


-al wick
Cozy IV with 3.0 liter Subaru
230+ hrs tt from Portla= nd, Oregon

---------- Original Message ----------
From: Mark Stei= tle <msteitle@gm= ail.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
= Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines
D= ate: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 06:45:24 -0500

Mike,

Has anyone ever tried to document the rotary incidents re= sulting in a forced landing?

Here's what I recall from memory, s= o it likely is missing a few;
=A0
=A0=A0=A0 3 forced landings due to = ruptured oil coolers
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced landing due to apex seal coming out of its slot (rotor o= ut of spec)
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced landing due to improper assembly of engin= e (seal wedged between rotor & side housing)
=A0=A0=A0 1 forced land= ing on highway due to catastrophic overheating of engine
=A0=A0=A0 2 forced landings (one fatal) due to probable fuel system design flaw=A0
=A0=A0= =A0 1 forced landing on highway due to ingestion of FOD.=A0

There w= ere a few others, such as turbo failures which allowed for continued operat= ion at reduced power, so we may or may not wish to include those here.=A0 <= br>
While a number of these incidents date back quite a few years, and we h= ave made excellent progress, it says to me that we still have room for impr= ovement in the peripheral department.=A0 The good news is that out of all o= f the incidents listed above, none of them were caused by a true engine fai= lure.=A0 That's where the rotary has really earned my respect as a viab= le a/c engine.

Pay attention to the details!

Mark S.


On= Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.ne= t> wrote:
This has been an interesting thread. I= n the end, it doesnt really matter how many "major" parts you hav= e - even a minor failure can bring you down. While I believe the basic rota= ry engine itself is more fault tolerant than a recip, the peripherals used = in the typical rotary install are a lot more complex than a typical recip i= nstall. Since we rotary fliers dont have the benefit of 70 years worth of e= xperience flying behind the typical LyCon farm implement I think overall ou= r odds are considerably worse. Comes down to how well an individual enginee= r's his installation and there is a tremendous amount of variation here= .
=A0
The dependence on electronics in the t= ypical rotary install=A0 is a good example. I may be a little=A0sensitive t= o this issue since I've been trying to find an intermittent glitch (2 t= imes in 22 hours of engine testing).
=A0
Mike Wills
RV-4 N144MW=A0=A0
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 = AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was = [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines

Good analysis and logic, Gary.

=A0

You=92d make a good addition to th= e =93rotary community=94.=A0 I have noticed over the 10 years I have been f= lying my rotary powered RV-6A that the problems have decreased considerably= , the success rate and completion rate has gone up and first flights are no= w occurring without significant problems =96 even cooling is OK {:>).=A0= I believe most of this improvement can be attributed to folks sharing thei= r knowledge, problems and solutions with others - such as on this list.=A0 =

=A0

I know that fewer parts count is o= ften touted as one of the rotary benefit =96 and while it is true that the = part count is lower, the most significant thing (in my opinion) is not only= does the lower part count help reliability (if it is not there =96 it can = not break), but if you look a the design of the eccentric shaft (for exampl= e) you notice the absence of the jogs in a typical crankshaft and their str= ess points.=A0 The thing is over 3=94 in diameter at some points and does n= ot have the same inertia loads born by a piston crankshaft.=A0 The parts th= at are there are of very robust design.=A0 Finally, the rotary is (I believ= e) more tolerant of damage and tends to fail =93gradually and gracefully=94= , it can take a licking and keep on ticking as the old saying goes.=A0 Only= extended time and numbers will provide the true MTBF for the rotary, but I believe it looks very promising.

=A0

Failure of rotary engines are extr= emely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installation= s, auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off = designs have been the cause of most failures =96 with probably fuel the pri= me culprit.=A0 The good news is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) w= e have pretty much established what will make an installation successful.= =A0 The Canard crowd is fast approaching that status with their somewhat mo= re challenging cooling requirements being over come.

=A0

=A0 Having lost a rotor during fli= ght due to putting in high compression rotors with worn apex seal slots wor= n beyond specs (found this out later =96 my fault for not being aware of th= is spec limit and checking it) which led to apex seal failure and consequen= ce lost of most of the power from one rotor, I was still able to maintain 6= 500 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture knob to full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH =96 = a lot of it undoubtedly =A0being blown through the disabled rotor.=A0 Flew = it back 60 miles to a suitable runway and made a non-eventful landing.=A0= =A0 There was a small increase in vibration due to the power strokes no lon= ger being balanced, but nothing bad and you could still read the needles on= the gauges.=A0 Other folks have had FOD damage to a rotor and also make it= to a safe landing.=A0 Two folks lost cooling (one loss of coolant fluid , one lost of water pump) and while they did cook the eng= ines, both made it back to a safe landing.=A0 So all things considered, I t= hink the rotary continues to show that if the installation is designed prop= erly, it makes a very viable and reliable aircraft power plant.

=A0

Failure of rotary engines in aircr= aft are extremely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine = installations, auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently be= ing one-off designs - have been the cause of most failures.=A0 The good new= s is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much establis= hed what will make an installation successful.=A0 The Canard crowd is fast = approaching that status with their somewhat more challenging cooling requir= ements being over come.

=A0

My rotary installation cost me $65= 00 back in 1996, the primary cost being a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU= $2900.=A0 I have since purchased a 1991 turbo block engine from Japan for = $900 and rebuilt it myself for another $2200. =A0My radiators (GM evaporato= r cores) cost $5.00 from the junk yard and another $50.00 each for having t= he bungs welded on.=A0 So depending on how much you buy and how much you bu= ild the price can vary considerably.=A0 Today, I would say it would take a = minimum of around $8000 and more nominally around $10000 for a complete rot= ary installation in an RV =96 some folks could do it for less, some for mor= e.

=A0

But, regardless of the technical m= erit (or not) in someone=92s mind, the crucial thing (in my opinion) is you= need to address two personal factors:

=A0

1.=A0 What is your risk tolerance?= =A0 It doesn=92t really matter how sexy some =93exotic=94 engine installati= on may seem =96 if you are not comfortable flying behind (or in front) of i= t, then it certainly does not =A0makes sense to go that route.=A0 After all= , this is supposed to have an element of fun and enjoyment to it.

=A0

2.=A0 What is your knowledge, expe= rience and background (and you don=92t have to be an engineer) and do you f= eel comfortable with the level of involvement needed.

=A0

So hope you continue to contribute= to expanding our knowledge and understanding of the rotary in its applicat= ion to power plant for aircraft.

=A0

=A0

Best Regards

=A0

Ed

=A0

=A0

From: Ro= tary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] = On Behalf Of Gary Casey
Sent: Saturday, April 11, = 2009 8:36 AM
To: Rotary= motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines

=A0

Just to add a few more comments and answers to the several excellent com= ments posted:

=A0

How many parts does it take to make a rotary rotate? =A0Well, "part= s aren't parts" in this case. =A0Mark was right in that there are = maybe 4 "major" components, but you have to define major. =A0A pi= ston engine certainly has far more major parts. =A0Is a valve a "major= " part? =A0I think so. =A0Is a rotor corner button a major part? =A0No= t sure, but probably not. =A0Is each planet gear in the PSRU a major part? = =A0I say yes, and the PSRU is an integral part of the rotary engine. =A0As = someone correctly pointed out, it's not how many parts, but the reliabi= lity of the total system that counts. =A0Just looking at the history of the= rotary (which, from the implication of another post) it's not that goo= d, but I don't think it has anything to do with reliability of the conc= ept. =A0It's more to do with the experimental nature of the builds and installations. =A0My original point, perhaps not well expressed is that to= say there are just 4 parts is an oversimplification. =A0But let's face= it, to put in an engine that has had many thousands of identical predecess= ors is less "experimental" than one that hasn't..

=A0

Are we ES drivers more conservative? =A0Probably so, since the ES is pro= bably one of the experimentals most similar to production aircraft, and not= just because the Columbia (can't force myself to say Cezzna :-) was a = derivative. =A0Therefore, it tends to attract conservative builders and own= ers. =A0Not surprising then that almost all ES's have traditional power= plants, with the most excellent exception of Mark. =A0While there may be mo= re, I know of only two off-airport landings caused by engine failures in th= e ES in almost 20 years of experience. =A0One was caused by fuel starvation= right after takeoff (fatal) and one was caused by a PSRU failure in an aut= o engine conversion. =A0So our old-fashioned conservative nature has served= us pretty well.

=A0

Yes, I was assuming that the rotary had electronic fuel injection and ig= nition, but that by itself doesn't change the inherent fuel efficiency = of the engine. =A0Direct injection does have a potential to improve BSFC be= cause the fuel charge can be stratified. =A0It will probably decrease avail= able power, though. =A0I think the best rotary will be 5% less efficient th= an the "best" piston engine(same refinements added to each). =A0B= ut I stated that as a simple disadvantage - as Mark pointed out, it isn'= ;t that simple. =A0The rotary already comes configured to run on auto gas. = =A0The piston engine can also be so configured, but the compression ratio r= eduction would reduce its BSFC and maybe durability advantage. =A0The total= operating cost is certainly significantly less if auto gas can always be u= sed to refuel. =A0I assumed in my assessment that it will only be available 50% of the time. =A0The real disadvantage, which I failed to sta= te, is that the extra fuel required for a given mission might be 5 or 10% h= igher and that negated the weight advantage, if only for long-range flights= .

=A0

Is the engine less expensive? =A0I did a thorough analysis of a direct-d= rive recip auto engine installation and my conclusion was that if the auto = engine were equivalent in reliability to the aircraft engine it would likel= y cost just as much. =A0Is the same true of the rotary? =A0I'm not sure= , but you have to consider the total cost, including engineering of all the= parts in the system, not just the core engine. =A0I would love to do a rot= ary installation, but I don't think I could justify it by cost reductio= n.

=A0

It wasn't mentioned in the posts, but some have claimed the rotary i= s "smoother" than a recip. =A0I at first resisted that notion. = =A0Sure, any rotary given sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly balance= d. =A0A 4-cylinder opposed recip is not - there is a significant secondary = couple. =A0The 6-cylinder opposed engine is perfectly balanced, but only fo= r PRIMARY and SECONDARY forces and couples - higher order forces have never= really been analyzed, although they would be very small. =A0And then consi= der the forces within the engine that have to be resisted by that long, hea= vy, but flexible crankshaft. =A0So it isn't the mechanical balance that= gives the rotary an advantage. =A0Let's take a look at the the torsion= al pulsations, comparing the 3-rotor against the 6-cylinder: =A0A 6-cylinde= r engine has 3 power impulses per rotation, as does the 3-rotor, so they are the same, right? =A0Wrong. =A0They both incorporate 4 "stroke&quo= t; cycles, meaning that there separate and sequential intake, compression, = power and exhaust events so that is the same for both. =A0The power event, = which is the source of the torque impulse,=A0takes 1/2 of a crank rotation = for the recip. =A0In the rotary the power event requires 1/4 of a ROTOR rot= ation, but the rotor rotates at 1/3 crank rotation - the result is that the= power impulse lasts 3/4 of a CRANK rotation, 50% longer than in a recip. = =A0Therefore, the torsional excitation delivered to the propeller, PSRU and= to the airframe is significantly less than for a recip. =A0And if you anal= yze the actual forces imparted, they go down by the square of the rpm. =A0T= he torsional vibration amplitude goes down by a factor of 4 just because th= e rpm of the rotary turns about twice as fast. =A0If you've skipped to = the bottom of the paragraph, as you probably should have :-), yes the rotary is "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my apologi= es to rotary purists, for simplicity I used the word "crankshaft"= for both engines)

=A0

But just because you can burn auto gas should you? =A0The biggest proble= ms with auto gas in recip aircraft have nothing to do with the engine, but = with the high vapor pressure of the fuel - it is more prone to vapor lock. = =A0The fuel systems of certified aircraft are not particularly well designe= d with regard to vapor lock. =A0"Fortunately", rotary engines typ= ically have no mechanical fuel pump and are forced to rely on electric pump= s. =A0Fortunately because the pumps can be located at the very bottom of th= e aircraft and close to the fuel tanks, making vapor lock much less likely.= =A0I would caution any builders to consider vapor lock possibilities very = seriously, much more so if you intend to run auto gas. =A0when I was going = to do this I planned to put one electric pump in the wing root of each wing= , feeding the engine directly(the check valve in the non-running pump prevents back-feeding). =A0Redundancy was by a "crossfeed" = line that could connect the tanks together.

=A0

And thanks, Mark for - probably incorrectly - referring to me as a "= ;good engineer". =A0I'll have to put that in my resume!

=A0

Have a good day,

Gary

(do you allow us outsiders in your events? =A0I'll park well away :-= )

=A0




__________ Inf= ormation from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 326= 7 (20080714) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com/<= /a>



--0015174c3d623787730467601486--