X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.234] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.13) with ESMTP id 3578908 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:48:24 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.198.234; envelope-from=wdleonard@gmail.com Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f9so1830567rvb.7 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:47:47 -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=bYiNDFQxTz9ZalkUzcY+B8xMjjzdnQT+7eNHTeJpR68=; b=Pppx4EP6J8xDLOBQk0TIJc8IU0wixs5CELMbsDJo/N7RH7zm/VLiHzNSrYmU4nvTbW 5K7yomIQ1/zlfgYxWduUWKbQyBIF2ciXlpfG/OMZTqyRHMMjIKMFtZI7Ei/UFe+U1uVm w2+/khxiHTr/MxneOWCsxk+ri3Yo3r61jX/gg= 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=gVSnewDVurl8YpcD/35kTG+cbkz1NWh6/kkpvCwV4ALUTwfPUxP30av62qbeUdOWuR qbq0TtGCWiwDg8Zg8/UIiHapxquq7Zw3OlnTEJJJ2a4HNmfrSrL42T44jO2YZKeOK8HY ZbmLNnXp7SvwuEmN6vywaaVj3ejFmjDqA8PBA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.179.5 with SMTP id g5mr2744360rvp.144.1239626867006; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:47:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:47:46 -0700 Message-ID: <1c23473f0904130547w73aab664pa3a65528ee44a839@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings From: David Leonard To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd1559a0fddf304676f1fc1 --000e0cd1559a0fddf304676f1fc1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bill, did you get these? They were under a different thread: Marc Joseph mentioned Mistral's clogged muffler incident. Then I added incidents that I recall: A coot with an out of CG that flew anyway and crashed he was known to Ken Welters, who (among others) advised him not to fly the plane. A guy somewhere on the west coast, not on any of the lists, who built some sort of plans built or personal design that crashed and burned on first flight. Details sketchy - though he was also advised by many that the plan= e was unsafe. He apparently also skipped his FAA inspection. (also fatal) One of the early Powersport installations in a nice looking pusher that developed a crack in the exhaust system (possibly due to faulty welding practices) and the hot exhaust caused vapor lock. One of the Powersport installations that was at Vans homecoming (one of those really nice RV-8s) had some sort of electrical system failure that caused a crash. Jim Mouser's old RV-6 crashed due to a reported pilot loss of control. I believe that left Ed as the last remaining flying plugs up installation. Ian Beale lost his first RV-6 due to a broken coolant line. No sure if any of those were already included on your list. Probably more that I don't know about. Still, the engine is sound and has a good power t= o weight ratio and small size. The devil is in the details. --=20 David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:34 AM, wrote: Also Mistral with an inadequate muffler. Marc Joseph On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: > Thanks Bill, > > With the addition of Bill's exciting adventure, and one of my own, we're = up > to 18 incidents in the database. These last two, along with Ed's brake > fire, and an oil coolant rupture, totals four incidents involving fires > during ground operations. Hopefully, everyone carries at least one fire > extinguisher in their airplane. > > Mark S. > > On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill Schertz wrote= : > >> One other thing to watch out for -- This occurred during ground testing= , >> but if it had happened in the air it would have been a forced landing. >> >> From my post of Feb. 8 >> Well, I haven't heard of this happening before -- I was ground running m= y >> engine to tune it with the EM-2 and EC-2. Ran for almost an hour, at >> various rpm's to change the manifold pressure and tweak the settings. >> Cooling working well, I had the top cowling off to allow good exit area >> since I was tied down. Coolant pressure about 14 psi as reported on the >> EM-2. >> >> Engine was running good, took it up to ~6000 rpm swinging a 76x76 Catto >> prop, when suddenly there was steam and fluid on my windshield. Shut it = down >> by killing power to the EC-2. Coolant everywhere. >> >> Got out and looked to diagnose the problem -- NOT my plumbing. A FREEZE >> PLUG in the iron housing had blown out. Rapid coolant dump. >> >> Secondary effect -- Since I shut down suddenly from full tilt, either th= e >> proximity of the cowl to the exhaust, or possibly some of the coolant on= the >> exhaust started a small fire on my cowl. Put it out with extinguisher, b= ut >> corner is charred. >> >> Now in repair mode. >> >> -------------------------- >> Update since this incident: All freeze plugs (7) on the engine have bee= n >> replaced by Bruce Turrentine, and he has inspected the engine. I am >> currently reinstalling it and getting ready for more tuning exercises. >> >> Bill Schertz >> KIS Cruiser #4045 >> N343BS >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Mark Steitle >> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:51 PM >> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings >> >> 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 hav= e a >> field that says "Explanation of Failure". Hopefully, we can make statem= ents >> as you suggest. Sometimes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time th= ey >> 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 eac= h >> failure. Maybe it is due to a poor weld, or wrong choice of material, o= r >> 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 < >> ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>> I think that it's just as important to understand the real cause of th= e >>> failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow sensor, it's highly unlik= ely >>> that use of the plastic sensor caused the failure; it was the use of pl= astic >>> in the wrong area without any protection. The homebuilder's knee-jerk >>> reaction is to say 'no plastic sensors because that one melted', even t= hough >>> there are tens of thousands of the same sensor in use in boating, a muc= h >>> more severe environment. >>> >>> Kind of like the canard builder who tried to put fuel in a wing built >>> with fuel-soluble foam. Obviously, it failed, but only because of the w= rong >>> 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 incide= nt >>> occured too. That will be your proof of reduced risk from things like t= his >>> newsgroup. >>> >>> Avoid the black and white approach: forced landing or not forced. Becau= se >>> 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 = also >>> explain what happened, then a reader can easily tell you were objective= in >>> your rating. >>> >>> The final piece is about how many flight hours, first flights there wer= e. >>> Each year there are more engines flying, so way more likely you will he= ar 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 hou= rs >>> 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 = your >>> numbers WILL reflect improvement. >>> >>> More important than anything. If you can force your self to say: "That >>> same failure will happen to me". Particularly if you can look at >>> "contributing factors". Then you can dramatically reduce personal risk.= Good >>> example: We had that guy that installed plastic fuel flow sensor in fue= l >>> line. It melted, he died. Tracy just reported hot exhaust caused fuel t= o >>> 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 cau= se a >>> failure. I'll put a thin ss shield here, with a bit of fibrefax glued t= o >>> 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 y= ou >>> 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 >>> of 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 engi= ne >>> 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 >>> continued operation at reduced power, so we may or may not wish to incl= ude >>> those here. >>> >>> While a number of these incidents date back quite a few years, and we >>> have 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= all >>> of the incidents listed above, none of them were caused by a true engin= e >>> failure. That's where the rotary has really earned my respect as a via= ble >>> 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 >>>> matter how many "major" parts you have - even a minor failure can brin= g you >>>> down. While I believe the basic rotary engine itself is more fault tol= erant >>>> than 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 >>>> the 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 try= ing 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 no= ticed >>>> over the 10 years I have been flying my rotary powered RV-6A that the >>>> problems have decreased considerably, the success rate and completion = rate >>>> has gone up and first flights are now occurring without significant pr= oblems >>>> =96 even cooling is OK {:>). I believe most of this improvement can b= e >>>> attributed to folks sharing their knowledge, problems and solutions wi= th >>>> others - such as on this list. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I know that fewer parts count is often touted as one of the rotary >>>> benefit =96 and while it is true that the part count is lower, the mos= t >>>> significant thing (in my opinion) is not only does the lower part coun= t help >>>> reliability (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 ov= er 3=94 >>>> in diameter at some points and does not have the same inertia loads bo= rn by >>>> a piston crankshaft. The parts that are there are of very robust desi= gn. >>>> Finally, the rotary is (I believe) more tolerant of damage and tends t= o fail >>>> =93gradually and gracefully=94, it can take a licking and keep on tick= ing as the >>>> old saying goes. Only extended time and numbers will provide the true= MTBF >>>> for the rotary, but I believe it looks very promising. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Failure of rotary engines are extremely rare, but unfortunately, as wi= th >>>> many alternative engine installations, auxiliary subsystems such as fu= el 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 t= hat for >>>> some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much established what = will >>>> make an installation successful. The Canard crowd is fast approaching= that >>>> status with their somewhat more challenging cooling requirements being= over >>>> 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 lat= er =96 >>>> my fault for not being aware of this spec limit and checking it) which= led >>>> to apex seal failure and consequence lost of most of the power from on= e >>>> rotor, I was still able to maintain 6500 MSL at WOT and fuel mixture k= nob to >>>> full rich =96 flowing 14.5 GPH =96 a lot of it undoubtedly being blow= n through >>>> the disabled rotor. Flew it back 60 miles to a suitable runway and ma= de a >>>> non-eventful landing. There was a small increase in vibration due to= the >>>> power strokes no longer being balanced, but nothing bad and you could = still >>>> read the needles on the gauges. Other folks have had FOD damage to a = rotor >>>> 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 en= gines, >>>> both made it back to a safe landing. So all things considered, I thin= k 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, auxiliar= y >>>> 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 platf= orms >>>> (such as the RVs) we have pretty much established what will make an >>>> installation successful. The Canard crowd is fast approaching that st= atus >>>> with their somewhat more challenging cooling requirements being over c= ome. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My rotary installation cost me $6500 back in 1996, the primary cost >>>> being a rebuilt engine $2000 and the PSRU $2900. I have since purchas= ed a >>>> 1991 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 depen= ding >>>> on how much you buy and how much you build the price can vary consider= ably. >>>> Today, 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, t= he >>>> crucial thing (in my opinion) is you need to address two personal fact= ors: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. What is your risk tolerance? It doesn=92t really matter how sexy = some >>>> =93exotic=94 engine installation may seem =96 if you are not comfortab= le flying >>>> behind (or in front) of it, then it certainly does not makes sense to= go >>>> 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 >>>> have to be an engineer) and do you feel comfortable with the level of >>>> involvement needed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So hope you continue to contribute to expanding our knowledge and >>>> understanding of the rotary in its application to power plant for airc= raft. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 cer= tainly >>>> 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 eac= h >>>> planet gear in the PSRU a major part? I say yes, and the PSRU is an >>>> integral part of the rotary engine. As someone correctly pointed out,= it's >>>> not how many parts, but the reliability of the total system that count= s. >>>> Just looking at the history of the rotary (which, from the implicatio= n 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 experimenta= l >>>> nature of the builds and installations. My original point, perhaps no= t well >>>> expressed is that to say there are just 4 parts is an oversimplificati= on. >>>> But let's face it, to put in an engine that has had many thousands of >>>> identical predecessors is less "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,= and >>>> not just because the Columbia (can't force myself to say Cezzna :-) wa= s 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 m= ay be >>>> more, I know of only two off-airport landings caused by engine failure= s in >>>> the ES in almost 20 years of experience. One was caused by fuel starv= ation >>>> right after takeoff (fatal) and one was caused by a PSRU failure in an= auto >>>> engine conversion. So our old-fashioned conservative nature has serve= d 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 efficien= cy of >>>> the engine. Direct injection does have a potential to improve BSFC be= cause >>>> the fuel charge can be stratified. It will probably decrease availabl= e >>>> power, though. I think the best rotary will be 5% less efficient than= the >>>> "best" piston engine(same refinements added to each). But I stated th= at as >>>> a simple disadvantage - as Mark pointed out, it isn't that simple. Th= e >>>> rotary already comes configured to run on auto gas. The piston engine= can >>>> also be so configured, but the compression ratio reduction would reduc= e its >>>> BSFC and maybe durability advantage. The total operating cost is cert= ainly >>>> significantly less if auto gas can always be used to refuel. I assume= d in >>>> my assessment that it will only be available 50% of the time. The rea= l >>>> disadvantage, which I failed to state, is that the extra fuel required= for 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-drive recip auto engine installation and my conclusion was that= if >>>> the auto engine were equivalent in reliability to the aircraft engine = it >>>> would likely cost just as much. Is the same true of the rotary? I'm = not >>>> sure, but you have to consider the total cost, including engineering o= f all >>>> the parts in the system, not just the core engine. I would love to do= a >>>> rotary installation, but I don't think I could justify it by cost redu= ction. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 = rotary >>>> given sufficient counterbalancing, is perfectly balanced. A 4-cylinde= r >>>> opposed recip is not - there is a significant secondary couple. The >>>> 6-cylinder opposed engine is perfectly balanced, but only for PRIMARY = and >>>> SECONDARY forces and couples - higher order forces have never really b= een >>>> analyzed, although they would be very small. And then consider the fo= rces >>>> within the engine that have to be resisted by that long, heavy, but fl= exible >>>> crankshaft. So it isn't the mechanical balance that gives the rotary = an >>>> advantage. Let's take a look at the the torsional pulsations, compari= ng the >>>> 3-rotor against the 6-cylinder: A 6-cylinder engine has 3 power impul= ses >>>> per rotation, as does the 3-rotor, so they are the same, right? Wrong= . >>>> They both incorporate 4 "stroke" cycles, meaning that there separate = and >>>> sequential intake, compression, power and exhaust events so that is th= e same >>>> for both. The power event, which is the source of the torque impulse,= takes >>>> 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 excita= tion >>>> delivered to the propeller, PSRU and to the airframe is significantly = less >>>> than for a recip. And if you analyze the actual forces imparted, they= go >>>> down by the square of the rpm. The torsional vibration amplitude goes= down >>>> 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 probab= ly >>>> should have :-), yes the rotary is "smoother" - a LOT smoother.. (my >>>> apologies to rotary purists, for simplicity I used the word "crankshaf= t" for >>>> both engines) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But just because you can burn auto gas should you? The biggest proble= ms >>>> with auto gas in recip aircraft have nothing to do with the engine, bu= t with >>>> the high vapor pressure of the fuel - it is more prone to vapor lock. = The >>>> fuel systems of certified aircraft are not particularly well designed = with >>>> regard to vapor lock. "Fortunately", rotary engines typically have no >>>> mechanical fuel pump and are forced to rely on electric pumps. Fortun= ately >>>> because the pumps can be located at the very bottom of the aircraft an= d >>>> close to the fuel tanks, making vapor lock much less likely. I would >>>> caution any builders to consider vapor lock possibilities very serious= ly, >>>> much more so if you intend to run auto gas. when I was going to do th= is I >>>> planned to put one electric pump in the wing root of each wing, feedin= g the >>>> engine directly(the check valve in the non-running pump prevents >>>> back-feeding). Redundancy was by a "crossfeed" line that could connec= t the >>>> tanks together. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And thanks, Mark for - probably incorrectly - referring to me as a "go= od >>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>> >> > --=20 David Leonard Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net http://RotaryRoster.net --000e0cd1559a0fddf304676f1fc1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Bill, did you get these?=A0 They were under a different thread:
=A0
Marc Joseph mentioned Mistral's clogged muffler incident.=A0 Then = I added=A0incidents that I recall:
=A0
A coot with an out of CG that = flew anyway and crashed he was known to Ken Welters, who (among others) adv= ised him not to fly the plane.
A guy somewhere on the west coast,=A0not on any of the lists, who built som= e sort of plans built or personal design that crashed and burned on first f= light.=A0 Details sketchy - though he was also advised by many that the pla= ne was unsafe.=A0 He apparently also skipped his FAA inspection. (also fata= l)
One of the early Powersport installations in a nice looking pusher that dev= eloped a crack in the exhaust system (possibly due to faulty welding practi= ces) and the hot exhaust caused vapor lock.
One of the Powersport instal= lations that was at Vans homecoming (one of those really nice RV-8s) had so= me sort of electrical system failure that caused a crash.
Jim Mouser's old RV-6 crashed due to a reported pilot loss of control.= =A0 I believe that left Ed as the last remaining flying plugs up installati= on.
Ian Beale lost his first RV-6 due to a broken coolant line.
No sure if any of those were already included on your list.=A0 Probabl= y more that I don't know about.=A0 Still, the engine is sound and has a= good power to weight ratio and small size.=A0 The devil is in the details.=
--
David Leonard
=A0

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:34 AM, <jrmjoseph@videotron.ca> wrote:
Also Mistral with an inadequate muffler.
=A0
Marc Joseph

=
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.co= m> wrote:
Thanks Bill,

With the ad= dition of Bill's exciting adventure, and one of my own, we're up to= 18 incidents in the database.=A0 These last two, along with Ed's brake= fire, and an oil coolant rupture, totals four incidents involving fires du= ring ground operations.=A0 Hopefully, everyone carries at least one fire ex= tinguisher in their airplane.

Mark S.

On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Bill Schertz <wschertz@comcast.net> wrote:
One other thing to watch out for -- Th= is occurred during ground testing, but if it had happened in the air it wou= ld have been a forced landing.
=A0
From=A0 my post of Feb. 8
Well, I haven't heard of this happ= ening before -- I was ground running my engine to=A0 tune it with the EM-2 = and EC-2.=A0 Ran for almost an hour, at various rpm's to change the man= ifold pressure and tweak the settings. Cooling working well, I had the top = cowling off to allow good exit area since I was tied down. Coolant pressure= about 14 psi as reported on the EM-2.
=A0
Engine was running good, took it up to= ~6000 rpm swinging a 76x76 Catto prop, when suddenly there was steam and f= luid on my windshield. Shut it down by killing power to the EC-2. Coolant e= verywhere.
=A0
Got out and looked to diagnose the pro= blem -- NOT my plumbing.=A0 A FREEZE PLUG in the iron housing had blown out= . Rapid coolant dump.
=A0
Secondary effect -- Since I shut down = suddenly from full tilt, either the proximity of the cowl to the exhaust, o= r possibly some of the coolant on the exhaust started a small fire on my co= wl. Put it out with extinguisher, but corner is charred.
=A0
Now in repair mode.
=A0
--------------------------
Update since this incident:=A0 All fre= eze plugs (7) on the engine have been replaced by Bruce Turrentine, and he = has inspected the engine. I am currently reinstalling it and getting ready = for more tuning exercises.
=A0
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser #4045
N343BS
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 1:51 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: forced landings

Charlie,

That's a very good point.=A0 I'm try= ing to stay away from assigning a "cause" for whatever happened b= ecause I don't have all the facts.=A0 I have a field that says "Ex= planation of Failure".=A0 Hopefully, we can make statements as you sug= gest.=A0 Sometimes, even the FAA gets it wrong, like the time they attribut= ed the engine failure to the builder removing the oil injection pump.=A0 Al= so, I doubt that we could all agree on a "single cause" for each = failure.=A0 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.=A0= What I hope to accomplish is to point out areas where we need to be more c= areful on how we 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 Englan= d <ceengland@bellsouth.net> wrote:
I think that it's just as important to understand the real cause o= f the failure. In the case of the plastic fuel flow sensor, it's highly= unlikely that use of the plastic sensor caused the failure; it was the use= of plastic in the wrong area without any protection. The homebuilder's= knee-jerk reaction is to say 'no plastic sensors because that one melt= ed', 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

From: al wick <alwick@juno.com>=20

To: Rotary motors = in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 10:13:00 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: fo= rced 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 were a few others, such as turbo failures which allowed f= or continued operation at reduced power, so we may or may not wish to inclu= de those here.=A0

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.net> 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
<= /div>
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 7:31 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Gary Casey was [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engine= s

Good analysis and logic, Gary.

=A0

You=92d make a good addition to the= =93rotary community=94.=A0 I have noticed over the 10 years I have been fl= ying my rotary powered RV-6A that the problems have decreased considerably,= the success rate and completion rate has gone up and first flights are now= occurring without significant problems =96 even cooling is OK {:>).=A0 = I believe most of this improvement can be attributed to folks sharing their= knowledge, problems and solutions with others - such as on this list.=A0 <= /span>

=A0

I know that fewer parts count is of= ten touted as one of the rotary benefit =96 and while it is true that the p= art 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 n= ot 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 stre= ss points.=A0 The thing is over 3=94 in diameter at some points and does no= t have the same inertia loads born by a piston crankshaft.=A0 The parts tha= t are there are of very robust design.=A0 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 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 extre= mely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine installations= , auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently being one-off d= esigns have been the cause of most failures =96 with probably fuel the prim= e culprit.=A0 The good news is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we= have pretty much established what will make an installation successful.=A0= The Canard crowd is fast approaching that status with their somewhat more = challenging cooling requirements being over come.

=A0

=A0 Having lost a rotor during flig= ht 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 thi= s spec limit and checking it) which led to apex seal failure and consequenc= e lost of most of the power from one rotor, I was still able to maintain 65= 00 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 i= t 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 longer= being balanced, but nothing bad and you could still read the needles on th= e 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 engines, both made it back= to a safe landing.=A0 So all things considered, I think the rotary continu= es to show that if the installation is designed properly, it makes a very v= iable and reliable aircraft power plant.

=A0

Failure of rotary engines in aircra= ft are extremely rare, but unfortunately, as with many alternative engine i= nstallations, auxiliary subsystems such as fuel and ignition frequently bei= ng one-off designs - have been the cause of most failures.=A0 The good news= is that for some platforms (such as the RVs) we have pretty much establish= ed what will make an installation successful.=A0 The Canard crowd is fast a= pproaching that status with their somewhat more challenging cooling require= ments being over come.

=A0

My rotary installation cost me $650= 0 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 evaporator= cores) cost $5.00 from the junk yard and another $50.00 each for having th= e bungs welded on.=A0 So depending on how much you buy and how much you bui= ld the price can vary considerably.=A0 Today, I would say it would take a m= inimum of around $8000 and more nominally around $10000 for a complete rota= ry installation in an RV =96 some folks could do it for less, some for more= .

=A0

But, regardless of the technical me= rit (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, exper= ience and background (and you don=92t have to be an engineer) and do you fe= el 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 applicati= on to power plant for aircraft.

=A0

=A0

Best Regards

=A0

Ed

=A0

=A0

From: Rota= ry motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Gary Casey
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2= 009 8:36 AM
To: Rotary m= otors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rotary Engines

http://www.eset.com/= =20



<= /blockquote>




--
David Leonard

Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
--000e0cd1559a0fddf304676f1fc1--