X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nm27.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com ([98.139.44.154] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with SMTP id 4999298 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:18:46 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=98.139.44.154; envelope-from=keltro@att.net Received: from [98.139.44.96] by nm27.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2011 17:18:12 -0000 Received: from [98.139.44.93] by tm1.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2011 17:18:12 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1030.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 31 May 2011 17:18:12 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 599166.56819.bm@omp1030.access.mail.sp2.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 60389 invoked by uid 60001); 31 May 2011 17:18:12 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1306862292; bh=YnsJwRZDmEA3wsfFtlWuz7oGI5uK9Y2FCQfrO+LkUJ8=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=x/OS8iY1lxwhoplTbIwhOnoEN/LFoVI+TO7gwE5WeyxkfjoaMVmkTteblLIby3KIswKSUSoHz7JQcF1f+zMC+YYjH8+nmaSQoPP7rxwNVQuMQ4Hzy8h4c9u5ZqEx/p3qv6CzVX5I763CW45T7T2ygSVoHnNCs6GIvuwsM1EjYcA= 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=ImyU3cnxDf1JyrplrbZMPnJXag0y/dYaVD5ngjCCVw2uWfmASdPTbvV4Xoe1qX7qx+8eyPutIp4meXaRNSPCCVdwMlwwW+fy7yRv09g4uJLpTTHIJ3l1yFDIJjLR6t6np2TFLvALXFATyXIxYB5LuagiU1rGVoWFbzggzo459UU=; Message-ID: <167712.92815.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: DR.bQOMVM1mMW1GtbUk4DHurs9nbl8mUL0VZzkx_WyCf7cL p33KgtX8yNyZ3MkNd5Vo7I0.GRQgkpR.fVPfha.oFAeOhJE6uh7Xou35LjcI n5vp7PbrkpjB6mY08e.nAD5pnBJsGG24mTJqpRAbgj6pixgHrc.rmg5PIaeN zWqyD0OMZTw9st9Ina.wny4qFiCFwu336EvrtxEgi.Shb21YuXJDqfKg75Kb aBfjGxaOmCUNDsP9MM4pdQjhnaEQwkPMeQqEw2idDRcjtIFfKrwiiOpZDog7 Ch69V7u9mhxZIoi3oRCGrcLmR72y0ZVSsWxzKvk7aH.MQkm84qsy6jRB8DpS YLG6cJf_WCZMLLFontC.d_h0Yux_uQJv1LNpax5Mjo6vQmVvmTldYywOL1zh 4BJqlkJgecCOhe5snNUTVYRSY2apDCtKETWZ46ACCjiHcON7IYS8K2O.D1N0 .YJusolUCzaMRAfVYGyE5Y5ZYmi7ExyQPcOtcqzxuhGw8ka7H8F0mE7IP3NI EfsQ5AKdCtrR3tGnBszM- Received: from [208.114.42.210] by web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 10:18:11 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/570 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 10:18:11 -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="0-1976271916-1306862291=:92815" --0-1976271916-1306862291=:92815 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mark and Group,=0A=A0=0A=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 I too echo Mark's feelings on th= is subject..........How can anyone build =0Aand fly an experimental airfram= e which=0Aitself is=A0subject to many more potential failure modes (dependi= ng entirely on =0Athe skill and attention to detail of the =0A=0Aindividual= builder)=A0be so adamant in their put-down of=A0an alternative =0A(automot= ive) power-plant that the automotive=0Amanufacturers=A0have subjected to mu= ch more torturous tests than is required by =0AFAA regs for any of the curr= ent =0A=0Acertified piston power-plants !!..............IMHO=0A=A0=0A=A0=A0= =A0=A0=A0 =A0Come on group lets hear some other opinions from you about alt= ernative =0Apower-plants in general and our=0Afavorite in particular.......= ........=0A=0A.=A0=A0=A0=A0=0AKelly Troyer=0A"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)= =0A"13B ROTARY"_ Engine=0A"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Mani= fold=0A"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A___________________________= _____=0AFrom: Mark Steitle =0ATo: Rotary motors in airc= raft =0ASent: Tue, May 31, 2011 11:32:15 AM=0A= Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine=0A=0AKelly,=A0 =0A= =0AThanks for the kind words. =A0I'm tired of listening to the=A0hypocrites= that build =0A"Experimental" airplanes and then badmouth anyone that uses = a non-certified =0Aengine. =A0Yes, it might be argued that the auto-convers= ion crowd is a little =0Afurther out on the limb than the certified group. = =A0(I learned from a personal =0Aexperience how quickly a certified engine = can self-destruct. =A0Engine blew a jug =0Aat low altitude. =A0I saved a ma= ngled chunk of aluminum, which was once a piston, =0Ato remind myself of ju= st how fragile these engines are.) Personally, I believe =0Athat I have bee= n much more cautious with my rotary installation than I would =0Ahave been = if I had gone the certified "plug-n-play" route. =A0And I also check =0Aund= er the cowl more often than the certified bunch does. =A0I just couldn't ho= ld =0Amy tongue any longer. =A0So far, your has been the only reply. =A0;-)= =0A=0AMark=0A=A0=A0 =A0=A0=0AP.S. =A0My feelings don't extend to reciprocat= ing piston engines.=0A=0A=0AOn Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kelly Troyer <= keltro@att.net> wrote:=0A=0AWell said Mark !!......................<:)=0A>= =A0=0A>Kelly Troyer=0A>"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)=0A>"13B ROTARY"_ Engin= e=0A>"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2=0A>"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold=0A>"TURBONETICS= "_TO4E50 Turbo=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A________________________________=0AFro= m: Mark Steitle =0A>To: Rotary motors in aircraft =0A>Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39:57 PM=0A>Subject: = [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine=0A>=0A>=0A>Ted,=A0 =0A>=0A>= =0A>If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe" choice= s, may I =0A>direct you to the FAA accident database? =A0It is full of evid= ence to the =0A>contrary.=A0=0A>=0A>=0A>Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotar= y group (www.flyrotary.com) of which I have =0A>participated in since the m= id 90's. =A0A couple of other good rotary sites are =0A>www.rotaryeng.net a= nd www.rotaryaviation.com. =A0There are many flying examples of =0A>the rot= ary engine being a viable alternative engine. =A0While it is definitely not= =0A>a plug-n-play solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to be= a =0A>reliable aircraft powerplant. =A0But, as they say, the devil's in th= e details. =A0As =0A>with the Lycoming or Continental options, I wouldn't c= all the rotary a totally =0A>"safe" choice either. =A0A broken oil line can= ruin your day as quickly as a =0A>broken crankshaft. =A0If you address the= peripheral systems, the engine itself is =0A>extremely robust. =A0(My 350h= p peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving =0A>parts, all of whic= h spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic for =0A>another posti= ng.)=A0=A0The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing =0A>ver= y high power in racing applications. =A0In the Mazda series they typically = run =0A>the engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. =A0The rotary = is a very tough =0A>little engine!=0A>=0A>=0A>Is the Lycoming engine "safer= "? =A0Maybe, maybe not. =A0But if "safe" is the target =0A>to which we aim,= then we should all stay on the ground.=A0=A0=0A>=0A>=0A>Mark=A0=0A>Lancair= ES, n/a 3-rotor=0A>=0A>=0A>On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, wrote:=0A>=0A>While I am confident the Eagle V8 will do well, based = on the designer and many =0A>bits of the internals, it has proven very expe= nsive and time-consuming. Check in =0A>on the FlyRotary email list (Marv ru= ns it). There are rotaries of the =0A>appropriate power flying with good re= cords. Many of the headaches have already =0A>had their aspirin taken. Unle= ss you are a bit of a masochist (which I didn't =0A>think I was), unfortuna= tely the 1930's boat anchors remain the "safe" choice.=0A>>=0A>>Ted Noel=0A= >>=0A>>=0A>>---- Rod Pharis wrote:=0A>>> Many years b= ack an apparently qualified and well healed small company began=0A>>> devel= opment of a 572 cid Chevy big-block engine converted for aircraft=0A>>> app= lications, including a less expensive replacement for certain turboprop=0A>= >> power-plants. =A0They spent piles of money and many years of work, inclu= ding a=0A>>> special speed reduction unit. =A0In the end, not a single orig= inal part was=0A>>> retained, including the spark plugs. =A0The company was= in poor financial=0A>>> health at that point, and I believe another compan= y bought that company and=0A>>> the rights, and they apparently did no bett= er with the project even though=0A>>> they inherited many lessons learned f= rom the first owners. =A0As far as I can=0A>>> tell, the project was abando= ned. =A0A single guy would have little chance at=0A>>> success with a one-o= ff attempt. =A0Don't even think about it!!!!!!!!!!! =A0Even=0A>>> a small m= odification to an existing successful airplane engine would likely=0A>>> ta= ke 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@lancaironli= ne.net=0A>>> Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine=0A>>>=0A>>> I have re= ad with interest many of the posts on this subject. =A0I too, had=0A>>> con= sidered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the engine and=0A>>> d= esigned most of the systems. =A0I was convinced (and still am) that an=0A>>= > automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to the prop co= uld=0A>>> do an effective job. =A0But....=0A>>> Brent makes many good point= s and I agree with them, but engines are=0A>>> inanimate objects and don't = respond to the intent of the designers - they=0A>>> only respond to the det= ails of the design itself. =A0So what makes the=0A>>> liquid-cooled automot= ive engine inappropriate for an aircraft application?=0A>>> Liquid cooling = helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures=0A>>> allow a hig= her compression ratio, but the slower-running large displacement=0A>>> airc= raft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the higher=0A>>> co= mpression ratio. =A0An efficient radiator can cool with less pressure drop,= =0A>>> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cooled engine. = =A0The=0A>>> liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the frontal= area, but the=0A>>> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usu= ally determined by the=0A>>> cabin, not the engine. =A0The list goes on.=0A= >>>=0A>>> Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? =A0The configuration has be= en 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 C= ontinental have cherry-picked=0A>>> the technologies developed by others th= at apply to aircraft engines, and=0A>>> developed some of their own. =A0Bot= tom line? =A0I'm happy with the 50-year-old=0A>>> Lycoming in my ES. =A0And= while I usually wish for a turbocharger when getting=0A>>> out of my 3800 = ft, 7000 ft elevation runway, once in the air the fuel=0A>>> efficiency of = the high-compression, naturally-aspirated engine is nice.=0A>>>=0A>>> Gary = Casey=0A>>> ES #157, naturally aspirated Lyc IO-540=0A>>=0A>>=0A>>--=0A>>Fo= r archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html= =0A>>=0A>=0A --0-1976271916-1306862291=:92815 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=0A
Mark and Group,
=0A
=  
=0A
   =     I too echo Mark's feelings on this subject..........How = can anyone build and fly an experimental airframe which
=0Aitself is subject to many more potential failure modes= (depending entirely on the skill and attention to detail of the =0A
individual builder) be so adamant in their p= ut-down of an alternative (automotive) power-plant that the automotive=
=0A
manufacturers have subjected to mu= ch more torturous tests than is required by FAA regs for any of the current=
=0A
certified piston power-plants !!......= ........IMHO
=0A
 
=0A
=        Come on group lets hear= some other opinions from you about alternative power-plants in general and= our
=0A
favorite in particular.............= ..
=0A
 
=0A
.    
= =0A

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

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

=0A

"TURBONETICS"_T= O4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom:<= /B> Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironli= ne.net>
Sent: Tue, Ma= y 31, 2011 11:32:15 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine

Kelly= ,  =0A

=0A
Thanks for the kind words.  I'm tire= d of listening to the hypocrites that build "Experimental" airplanes a= nd then badmouth anyone that uses a non-certified engine.  Yes, it mig= ht be argued that the auto-conversion crowd is a little further out on the = limb than the certified group.  (I learned from a personal experience = how quickly a certified engine can self-destruct.  Engine blew a jug a= t low altitude.  I saved a mangled chunk of aluminum, which was once a= piston, to remind myself of just how fragile these engines are.) Personall= y, I believe that I have been much more cautious with my rotary installatio= n than I would have been if I had gone the certified "plug-n-play" route. &= nbsp;And I also check under the cowl more often than the certified bunch do= es.  I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer.  So far, your has= been the only reply.  ;-)
=0A

=0A
Mark
= =0A
     
=0A
P.S.  My feelings don't= extend to reciprocating piston engines.

=0A
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kelly Troyer <keltro@att.net> wrote:
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
=0A
Well said Mark !!= ......................<:)
 
=0A

Kelly Troyer
<= FONT size=3D4>"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

=0A

"13B ROTARY"_ Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Bac= kplate/Oil Manifold

=0A

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo

=0A

=0A

=0A
=0A
=0AFrom: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39:= 57 PM
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
=0A
=0A
=0A<= DIV class=3Dh5>
Ted,  =0A

=0A
If you are of the b= elief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe" choices, may I direct you to = the FAA accident database?  It is full of evidence to the contrary.&nb= sp;
=0A

=0A
Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary gro= up (ww= w.flyrotary.com) of which I have participated in since the mid 90's. &n= bsp;A couple of other good rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and www.rotaryav= iation.com.  There are many flying examples of the rotary engine b= eing a viable alternative engine.  While it is definitely not a plug-n= -play solution and nor is it for everyone, it has proven to be a reliable a= ircraft powerplant.  But, as they say, the devil's in the details. &nb= sp;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 a= s quickly as a broken crankshaft.  If you address the peripheral syste= ms, 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


<= /html> --0-1976271916-1306862291=:92815--