X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.100] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1124105 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:51 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.100; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-01.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4N0x57b023675 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001001c67e04$2f85baa0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 20:59:46 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000D_01C67DE2.A7F833E0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C67DE2.A7F833E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageI agree in part about the reliability FWF, Rusty. However, if = you read the accident reports, you will find that FWF reliability is = just as bad a problem with Lycomings in RVs. Something like 20-30% of = all homebuilt crashes happen during take off and are fuel related and as = you know the vast majority are Lycoming powered. I don't know what our = percentage would be but I would bet in the same ball park.=20 I am aware of two fatalities during early stages of flight with Rotary's = and a third one that occurred with a rotary powered RV years after its = first flight and after several hundred hours of flight. So that's three = I am personally aware of. Last time I counted there were something like = 30+ rotary powered aircraft (that I could find and that was several = years ago), so even if there were no more than that number, that would = put us in the 10% fatality range. Could be higher, could be lower, but = I would say in the same ball park as the overall Homebuilt accident rate = - NOT that is good by any stretch. I do agree that we need to do better in that area. However, as YOU know = we are all experimenters - willing to try a different approaches. I = think its very clear that should you follow Tracy's, Bill Eslicks, or = (heaven forbid)even my approach - or any FWF configuration that has been = proven over several hundred hours or more of flight - the odds are good = you won't have a failure. But, being experimenters, we want to try out = our own ideals or are forced by our FWF configuration to try a different = approach - which as we all know do not always work out successfully. We possibly could standardize on a "safe" configuration - but then we = would no longer be "experimenters" {:>) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Russell Duffy=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:11 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions = from a potential rotaryphile However, I believe, there is plenty of objective evidence that says = the rotary is comparable or better than the Lycoming in just about any = aspect you want to consider. =20 Hi Ed, I would agree with the above statement, but unfortunately, the one key = area where the rotary clearly hasn't demonstrated superiority is "FWF = reliability". The rotary group has had way too many failures in the = past couple years, and this needs to be the area we work on. Most of it = has been silly things, and I'm certainly ashamed for my contribution to = the problems. =20 Even the Aviation Sport article supports that conclusion=20 Does anyone have an electronic copy of this article they could send = me? I guess I'm the only one who hasn't read it. =20 certainly cost less (even if you have to buy engine parts new), etc., = etc. So no doubt there is some rationalization- but I'm not certain = over what? =20 I would argue cost, and have in the past. I would (actually have) bet = real money that the $21k Lyclone I just installed on the RV-8 will work = out to be cheaper than a rotary engine installation over the few years = (at least) that I hope to fly this plane. This factors in resale of = course. =20 IF somebody would take the rotary and produce a reasonably price FWF = kit, I believe you would find the rotary installations would expand = exponentially. Most folks are understandably a bit daunted by the = challenge of designing and putting that all together on their on.=20 Amen brother!!! This is certainly what would need to happen. = Powersport made a great engine installation, but at such a high price = that not too many people bought it. If someone like Eggenfellner would = make a rotary package, it would be expensive, but from a name that = people know (whether they can spell it or not), and trust. I would = certainly hope that people would see the value of a rotary over the = Subaru given the same price, and FWF producer.=20 Better get started on that article now :-) Actually, I was wondering = if the rotary group could put together it's own fly-off between similar = planes. It would have to be well documented, but we have enough = engineers here to make sure of that. Heck, in the not too distant = future, we should ( <--- key word ) have a 2 and 3 rotor RV-8 to test = against my Lycoming. =20 Cheers, Rusty (T-minus about 53 hours until I'm back home) =20 PS, can't wait to hear how the 500HP Lancair flies! =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C67DE2.A7F833E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
I agree in part about the = reliability FWF,=20 Rusty.  However, if you read the accident reports, you will find = that FWF=20 reliability is just as bad a problem with Lycomings in RVs.  = Something like=20 20-30% of all homebuilt crashes happen during take off and are fuel = related and=20 as you know the vast majority are Lycoming powered.  I don't know = what our=20 percentage would be but I would bet in the same ball = park. 
 
I am aware of two fatalities = during early=20 stages of flight with Rotary's and a third one that occurred with a = rotary=20 powered RV years after its first flight and after several hundred hours = of=20 flight.  So that's three I am personally aware of.  Last time = I=20 counted there were something like 30+ rotary powered aircraft (that I = could=20  find and that was several years ago), so even if there were no = more than=20 that number, that would put us in the 10% fatality range.  Could be = higher,=20 could be lower, but I would say in the same ball park as the overall = Homebuilt=20 accident rate - NOT that is good by any stretch.
 
I do agree that we need to do = better in that=20 area.  However, as YOU know we are all experimenters - willing to = try a=20 different approaches.  I think its very clear that should you = follow=20 Tracy's, Bill Eslicks, or (heaven forbid)even my approach - or any FWF=20 configuration that has been proven over several hundred hours or more of = flight=20 - the odds are good you won't have a failure.  But, being = experimenters, we=20 want to try out our own ideals or are forced by our FWF configuration to = try a=20 different approach  - which as we all know do not always = work out=20 successfully.
 
We possibly could standardize on = a "safe"=20 configuration - but then we would no longer be  "experimenters"=20 {:>)
 
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Russell=20 Duffy
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 6:11 = PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Rationalization=20 was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile

However, I = believe,  there=20 is plenty of objective evidence that says the rotary is comparable or = better=20 than the Lycoming in just about any aspect you want to = consider.  
 
Hi Ed,
 
I would agree with the above = statement, but=20 unfortunately, the one key area where the rotary clearly hasn't=20 demonstrated superiority is "FWF reliability".  The = rotary=20 group has had way too many failures in the past couple = years,=20 and this needs to be the area we work on.  Most of it = has been=20 silly things, and I'm certainly ashamed for my contribution = to the=20 problems.          
Even the Aviation Sport = article supports=20 that conclusion 
 
Does anyone=20 have an electronic copy of this article they could send me?  I = guess I'm=20 the only one who hasn't read it. 
 
certainly cost less = (even if you=20 have to buy engine parts new), etc., etc.   So no doubt = there is=20 some rationalization- but I'm not certain over what?   
 
I would argue cost, and have in the past.  I = would=20 (actually have) bet real money that the $21k Lyclone I = just=20 installed on the RV-8 will work out to be cheaper than = a rotary=20 engine installation over the few years (at least) that I hope to fly = this=20 plane.  This factors in resale of course.  =20    
 
IF somebody would take = the rotary=20 and produce a reasonably price FWF kit, I believe you would find the = rotary=20 installations would expand exponentially.  Most folks are = understandably=20 a bit daunted by the challenge of designing and  putting that all = together on their on. 
 
Amen brother!!!  This is certainly what would = need to=20 happen.   Powersport made a great engine installation, but = at such a=20 high price that not too many people bought it.  If someone like=20 Eggenfellner would make a rotary package, it would be expensive, but = from a=20 name that people know (whether they can spell it or not), and = trust.  I=20 would certainly hope that people would see the value of a rotary over = the=20 Subaru given the same price, and FWF=20 producer. 
 
Better get started on that article now :-)  = Actually, I was=20 wondering if the rotary group could put together it's own fly-off = between=20 similar planes.  It would have to be well documented, but we = have=20 enough engineers here to make sure of that.  Heck, in the = not too=20 distant future, we should ( <--- key word <g>) have a 2 and 3 = rotor=20 RV-8 to test against my Lycoming. =20  
 
Cheers,
Rusty (T-minus about 53 hours until I'm back=20 home)    
 
PS, can't wait to hear how the 500HP Lancair=20 flies!   
 
------=_NextPart_000_000D_01C67DE2.A7F833E0--