X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.155] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4997694 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 29 May 2011 16:49:38 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.155; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.139.44.104] by nm28.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2011 20:49:01 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.81] by tm9.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2011 20:49:01 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1018.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 May 2011 20:49:01 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 704402.42466.bm@omp1018.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 74299 invoked by uid 60001); 29 May 2011 20:49:01 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1306702141; bh=N8K95JKcZsXIVJhGb9lt0r+k4FBiT2TQhgXVAMaHHEA=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=yQm9JW7G6Qv8Sw2/NdkBDpNSCaTW6SCWlHSGawaeCASRbp3Gnf0eOZ8oV+EwYvbP9luxpe+hdk83iHGap3GtgpdgSwKj4cnUlshy10kxeZXnLNWzAAjJHx9/nUfuATkr4WtyC4YKFqKqt84fefr1Raq1ulXM9jiDg13XY8GVjcc= DomainKey-Signature:a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=att.net; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=42JjKUwN75OTNbyPQmG7NfNZ06TSHv4vN65vyYXdQIaeZhOKzIFArvDk1MP4jW3IpLamhHc/TWtuCnr/uR8zFeaVF0V2A3pAkXDGPHL2DymKMhMcRK4naUqKzoYnD7k9XsigE/O3GCJCvXfO3AfEFOsvjXWIQ33vXeAOw9q1Znc=; Message-ID: <491201.73213.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: n4cOkEIVM1k45Ol4AZD1apd4m2_u9YGY6HIxhvrFzRmQ9UA Hm2E5Yv9VI4IMJRm4plGvvHx7Ppq4sMXHyilMibAW5kKrvhH3XS8VYTlx_2v _S71vklm__N6hbl15RyQ3HF8.tyXJLcpTUoUBfUoYwDPWZDgBlLL0HSzAH7O i2N0c5p2Pm0TXwIHKSkdEUFWNKcaWF.R0iD35Vo9EliU3r1SXc1p4ukSeLdM 31T.HNxqroKrMIPPTfKeKc3S.PCwRkTkpWWzk6ssJX080SJ4AARkC03Hax3A JoB8nVDL6w7ypsHsVQDzKybEllaMcVhsCnA3DxigCSaCRUUhjRc0l7IHx9Sc x_9BLMancqr5ZT1Il8GW19Cf91fgRMr0SebgDCY6lot8ikMBYSMHkfhw5vx_ yIo8XFo64qToTb1quTNe5UyYZ1nlxteRMxNND7_25qIbPs0doqrxumJo7Gnu 0ToFGAIZLl7tlR0fyUjQ4EC_5KOk.Ds1bI.4ytZwFwrL1Weyfy4nAM0Uc09Z .1WTcXs9ZC0BKMxNmH7M- Received: from [208.114.42.210] by web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 29 May 2011 13:49:01 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/570 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Sun, 29 May 2011 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Kelly Troyer Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine To: Rotary motors in aircraft In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1954923775-1306702141=:73213" --0-1954923775-1306702141=:73213 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well said Mark !!......................<:)=0A=A0=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DEL= TA JD2" (Eventually)=0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRAL= "_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A_______= _________________________=0AFrom: Mark Steitle =0ATo: R= otary motors in aircraft =0ASent: Sun, May 29,= 2011 2:39:57 PM=0ASubject: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine= =0A=0ATed,=A0 =0A=0AIf you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental a= re "safe" choices, may I =0Adirect you to the FAA accident database? =A0It = is full of evidence to the =0Acontrary.=A0=0A=0AThanks for mentioning the F= ly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com) of which I have =0Aparticipated in sinc= e the mid 90's. =A0A couple of other good rotary sites are =0Awww.rotaryeng= .net and www.rotaryaviation.com. =A0There are many flying examples of =0Ath= e rotary engine being a viable alternative engine. =A0While it is definitel= y not =0Aa plug-n-play solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven t= o be a =0Areliable aircraft powerplant. =A0But, as they say, the devil's in= the details. =A0As =0Awith the Lycoming or Continental options, I wouldn't= call the rotary a totally =0A"safe" choice either. =A0A broken oil line ca= n ruin your day as quickly as a =0Abroken crankshaft. =A0If you address the= peripheral systems, the engine itself is =0Aextremely robust. =A0(My 350hp= peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving =0Aparts, all of which = spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic for =0Aanother posting.= )=A0=A0The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing =0Avery hi= gh power in racing applications. =A0In the Mazda series they typically run = =0Athe engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. =A0The rotary is a = very tough =0Alittle engine!=0A=0AIs the Lycoming engine "safer"? =A0Maybe,= maybe not. =A0But if "safe" is the target =0Ato which we aim, then we shou= ld all stay on the ground.=A0=A0=0A=0AMark=A0=0ALancair ES, n/a 3-rotor=0A= =0A=0AOn Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, wrote:=0A=0AWhi= le I am confident the Eagle V8 will do well, based on the designer and many= =0Abits of the internals, it has proven very expensive and time-consuming.= Check in =0Aon the FlyRotary email list (Marv runs it). There are rotaries= of the =0Aappropriate power flying with good records. Many of the headache= s have already =0Ahad their aspirin taken. Unless you are a bit of a masoch= ist (which I didn't =0Athink I was), unfortunately the 1930's boat anchors = remain the "safe" choice.=0A>=0A>Ted Noel=0A>=0A>=0A>---- Rod Pharis wrote:=0A>> Many years back an apparently qualified and wel= l healed small company began=0A>> development of a 572 cid Chevy big-block = engine converted for aircraft=0A>> applications, including a less expensive= replacement for certain turboprop=0A>> power-plants. =A0They spent piles o= f money and many years of work, including a=0A>> special speed reduction un= it. =A0In the end, not a single original part was=0A>> retained, including = the spark plugs. =A0The company was in poor financial=0A>> health at that p= oint, and I believe another company bought that company and=0A>> the rights= , and they apparently did no better with the project even though=0A>> they = inherited many lessons learned from the first owners. =A0As far as I can=0A= >> tell, the project was abandoned. =A0A single guy would have little chanc= e at=0A>> success with a one-off attempt. =A0Don't even think about it!!!!!= !!!!!! =A0Even=0A>> a small modification to an existing successful airplane= engine would likely=0A>> take deep pockets to be successful.=0A>>=0A>> Rod= Pharis=0A>>=0A>> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net]= On Behalf Of Gary=0A>> Casey=0A>> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM=0A>= > To: lml@lancaironline.net=0A>> Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine= =0A>>=0A>> I have read with interest many of the posts on this subject. =A0= I too, had=0A>> considered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the= engine and=0A>> designed most of the systems. =A0I was convinced (and stil= l am) that an=0A>> automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct dri= ve to the prop could=0A>> do an effective job. =A0But....=0A>> Brent makes = many good points and I agree with them, but engines are=0A>> inanimate obje= cts and don't respond to the intent of the designers - they=0A>> only respo= nd to the details of the design itself. =A0So what makes the=0A>> liquid-co= oled automotive engine inappropriate for an aircraft application?=0A>> Liqu= id cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures=0A>> a= llow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large displacement= =0A>> aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the highe= r=0A>> compression ratio. =A0An efficient radiator can cool with less press= ure drop,=0A>> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cooled en= gine. =A0The=0A>> liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the fr= ontal area, but the=0A>> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is= usually determined by the=0A>> cabin, not the engine. =A0The list goes on.= =0A>>=0A>> Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? =A0The configuration has b= een around for=0A>> a long, long time, but that doesn't have much to do wit= h the effectiveness=0A>> of the engine. =A0The engineers at Lycoming and Co= ntinental have cherry-picked=0A>> the technologies developed by others that= apply to aircraft engines, and=0A>> developed some of their own. =A0Bottom= line? =A0I'm happy with the 50-year-old=0A>> Lycoming in my ES. =A0And whi= le I usually wish for a turbocharger when getting=0A>> out of my 3800 ft, 7= 000 ft elevation runway, once in the air the fuel=0A>> efficiency of the hi= gh-compression, naturally-aspirated engine is nice.=0A>>=0A>> Gary Casey=0A= >> ES #157, naturally aspirated Lyc IO-540=0A>=0A>=0A>--=0A>For archives an= d unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html=0A>=0A --0-1954923775-1306702141=:73213 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Well said Mark !!......................<:)
&n= bsp;
=0A

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Engi= ne
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TURB= ONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFro= m: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@l= ancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39:57 PM
Sub= ject: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
=
Ted,  =0A

=0A
If you are of the belief that Lyco= ming or Continental are "safe" choices, may I direct you to the FAA acciden= t database?  It is full of evidence to the contrary. 
=0A
=0A
Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com= ) of which I have participated in since the mid 90's.  A couple of= other good rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and www.rotaryaviation.com.=  There are many flying examples of the rotary engine being a viable a= lternative engine.  While it is definitely not a plug-n-play solution = and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to be a reliable aircraft powerpl= ant.  But, as they say, the devil's in the details.  As with the = Lycoming or Continental options, I wouldn't call the rotary a totally "safe= " choice either.  A broken oil line can ruin your day as quickly as a = broken crankshaft.  If you address the peripheral systems, the engine = itself is extremely robust.  (My 350hp peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving= parts, all of which spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic fo= r another posting.)  The rotary has shown to be more than capable= of producing very high power in racing applications.  In the Mazda se= ries they typically run the engines for one or two seasons without overhaul= .  The rotary is a very tough little engine!
=0A

= =0A
Is the Lycoming engine "safer"?  Maybe, maybe not.  But i= f "safe" is the target to which we aim, then we should all stay on the grou= nd.  
=0A

=0A
Mark 
=0A
Lanc= air ES, n/a 3-rotor
=0A

=0A
On Sun, Ma= y 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, <= tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
=0A
While I am confident the Eagle V8 will do well, based on the= designer and many bits of the internals, it has proven very expensive and = time-consuming. Check in on the FlyRotary email list (Marv runs it). There = are rotaries of the appropriate power flying with good records. Many of the= headaches have already had their aspirin taken. Unless you are a bit of a = masochist (which I didn't think I was), unfortunately the 1930's boat ancho= rs remain the "safe" choice.

Ted Noel


---- Rod Pharis <= ;rpharis@verizon.net> wrote:
&g= t; Many years back an apparently qualified and well healed small company be= gan
> development of a 572 cid Chevy big-block engine converted for a= ircraft
> applications, including a less expensive replacement for certain turboprop
> power-plants.  Th= ey spent piles of money and many years of work, including a
> special= speed reduction unit.  In the end, not a single original part was
= > retained, including the spark plugs.  The company was in poor fin= ancial
> health at that point, and I believe another company bought t= hat company and
> the rights, and they apparently did no better with = the project even though
> they inherited many lessons learned from th= e first owners.  As far as I can
> tell, the project was abandon= ed.  A single guy would have little chance at
> success with a o= ne-off attempt.  Don't even think about it!!!!!!!!!!!  Even
&g= t; a small modification to an existing successful airplane engine would lik= ely
> take deep pockets to be successful.
>
> Rod Pharis<= BR>>
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of= Gary
> Casey
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM
> To= : lml@lancaironline.net
> S= ubject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
>
> I have read with in= terest many of the posts on this subject.  I too, had
> consider= ed an automotive engine to the point I acquired the engine and
> desi= gned most of the systems.  I was convinced (and still am) that an
&= gt; automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to the prop = could
> do an effective job.  But....
> Brent makes many g= ood points and I agree with them, but engines are
> inanimate objects= and don't respond to the intent of the designers - they
> only respo= nd to the details of the design itself.  So what makes the
> liquid-coole= d automotive engine inappropriate for an aircraft application?
> Liqu= id cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures
>= ; allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large displaceme= nt
> aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the = higher
> compression ratio.  An efficient radiator can cool with= less pressure drop,
> but it requires about twice the air flow of an= air-cooled engine.  The
> liquid-cooled engine can be more comp= act, reducing the frontal area, but the
> frontal area of a side-by-s= ide seating aircraft is usually determined by the
> cabin, not the en= gine.  The list goes on.
>
> Is the aircraft engine old-fa= shioned?  The configuration has been around for
> a long, long t= ime, but that doesn't have much to do with the effectiveness
> of the engine.  The engineers at Lycoming and Continental have cherry= -picked
> the technologies developed by others that apply to aircraft= engines, and
> developed some of their own.  Bottom line?  = ;I'm happy with the 50-year-old
> Lycoming in my ES.  And while = I usually wish for a turbocharger when getting
> out of my 3800 ft, 7= 000 ft elevation runway, once in the air the fuel
> efficiency of the= high-compression, naturally-aspirated engine is nice.
>
> Gary= Casey
> ES #157, naturally aspirated Lyc IO-540


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

--0-1954923775-1306702141=:73213--