X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-fx0-f52.google.com ([209.85.161.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4999245 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 12:32:52 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.161.52; envelope-from=msteitle@gmail.com Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so3102309fxm.25 for ; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:32:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=9ZcLvFa5SiAzrIY+Ur8alocHi2KlcrVVI8kX5yXSsL0=; b=b/OcjUijAufOO8T2wf2U+ixhaCIi+VL/lxrUk1L8uHWxTqkyOYVPA8yamJyF37GEHf Tviedr6lp6GIDdU1aS4zeiShOLr4CzdSD5Qasv0UUUwxDyeD/p9ZjhITwZcMhcg8R3h6 mKv5twdmEkLLhqw5uzjv82gXx4+Urcjn2PYCI= 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=pZ0q/UEcSR4mUcBOEO/EfADgR+v4aCDYxVwUxaPSghvkUbcPFvPkWXhc8pxy4wx0ah SVi/Z7N8Yu/ypVr396GSdvXDn30QVkjHXo6AKnV7nCLnhUK0yoAPnkE/bbuoCap6XanI zKONMZpeat/AzhUoYhwJuzNJL5OqzqJ3eWYiY= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.85.155 with SMTP id o27mr7008025fal.109.1306859535662; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.87.4 with HTTP; Tue, 31 May 2011 09:32:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:32:15 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine From: Mark Steitle To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00151744813464feb304a494f211 --00151744813464feb304a494f211 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Kelly, Thanks for the kind words. I'm tired of listening to the hypocrites that build "Experimental" airplanes and then badmouth anyone that uses a non-certified engine. Yes, it might 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 at low altitude. I saved a mangled chunk of aluminum, which was once a piston, to remind myself of just how fragile these engines are.) Personally, I believe that I have been much more cautious with my rotary installation than I would have been if I had gone the certified "plug-n-play" route. And I also check under the cowl more often than the certified bunch does. I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. So far, your has been the only reply. ;-) Mark P.S. My feelings don't extend to reciprocating piston engines. On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kelly Troyer wrote: > Well said Mark !!......................<:) > > > Kelly Troyer > *"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)* > > "13B ROTARY"_ Engine > "RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2 > "MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil Manifold > > "TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mark Steitle > *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft > *Sent:* Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39:57 PM > *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine > > Ted, > > If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe" choices, > may I direct you to the FAA accident database? It is full of evidence to > the contrary. > > 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 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 aircraft powerplant. 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 for another > posting.) The rotary has shown to be more than capable of producing very > high power in racing applications. In the Mazda series they typically run > the engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. The rotary is a very > tough little engine! > > Is the Lycoming engine "safer"? Maybe, maybe not. But if "safe" is the > target to which we aim, then we should all stay on the ground. > > Mark > Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor > > On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, wrote: > >> 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 anchors remain the >> "safe" choice. >> >> Ted Noel >> >> >> ---- Rod Pharis wrote: >> > Many years back an apparently qualified and well healed small company >> began >> > development of a 572 cid Chevy big-block engine converted for aircraft >> > applications, including a less expensive replacement for certain >> turboprop >> > power-plants. They 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 financial >> > health at that point, and I believe another company bought that company >> and >> > the rights, and they apparently did no better with the project even >> though >> > they inherited many lessons learned from the first owners. As far as I >> can >> > tell, the project was abandoned. A single guy would have little chance >> at >> > success with a one-off attempt. Don't even think about it!!!!!!!!!!! >> Even >> > a small modification to an existing successful airplane engine would >> likely >> > take deep pockets to be successful. >> > >> > Rod Pharis >> > >> > 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 >> > Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine >> > >> > I have read with interest many of the posts on this subject. I too, had >> > considered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the engine and >> > designed most of the systems. I was convinced (and still am) that an >> > automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to the prop >> could >> > do an effective job. But.... >> > Brent makes many good points and I agree with them, but engines are >> > inanimate objects and don't respond to the intent of the designers - >> they >> > only respond to the details of the design itself. So what makes the >> > liquid-cooled automotive engine inappropriate for an aircraft >> application? >> > Liquid cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures >> > allow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large >> displacement >> > 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 compact, reducing the frontal area, but >> the >> > frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usually determined by >> the >> > cabin, not the engine. The list goes on. >> > >> > Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? The configuration has been around >> for >> > a long, long time, 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, 7000 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 >> > > --00151744813464feb304a494f211 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kelly,=A0

Thanks for the kind words. =A0I'm tired of= listening to the=A0hypocrites that build "Experimental" airplane= s and then badmouth anyone that uses a non-certified engine. =A0Yes, it mig= ht be argued that the auto-conversion crowd is a little further out on the = limb than the certified group. =A0(I learned from a personal experience how= quickly a certified engine can self-destruct. =A0Engine blew a jug at low = altitude. =A0I saved a mangled chunk of aluminum, which was once a piston, = to remind myself of just how fragile these engines are.) Personally, I beli= eve that I have been much more cautious with my rotary installation than I = would have been if I had gone the certified "plug-n-play" route. = =A0And I also check under the cowl more often than the certified bunch does= . =A0I just couldn't hold my tongue any longer. =A0So far, your has bee= n the only reply. =A0;-)

Mark
=A0=A0 =A0=A0
P.S. =A0My feeli= ngs don't extend to reciprocating piston engines.

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Kelly Troyer <keltro@att.net> wrote= :
Well said Mark !!......................<:)
=A0

Kelly Troyer
"DYKE DELTA JD2" (Eventually)

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

"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50 Turbo



From: Mark Steitle <msteitle@gmail.com&g= t;
To: Rotary motors in a= ircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, May 29, 2011 2:39= :57 PM
Subject: [FlyRotar= y] Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine

Ted,=A0=20

If you are of the belief that Lycoming or Continental are "safe&q= uot; choices, may I direct you to the FAA accident database? =A0It is full = of evidence to the contrary.=A0

Thanks for mentioning the Fly Rotary group (www.flyrotary.com) of wh= ich I have participated in since the mid 90's. =A0A couple of other goo= d rotary sites are www.rotaryeng.net and www.rotaryaviation.com. = =A0There are many flying examples of the rotary engine being a viable alter= native engine. =A0While it is definitely not a plug-n-play solution and nor= is it for everyone, it has proven to be a reliable aircraft powerplant. = =A0But, as they say, the devil's in the details. =A0As with the Lycomin= g or Continental options, I wouldn't call the rotary a totally "sa= fe" choice either. =A0A broken oil line can ruin your day as quickly a= s a broken crankshaft. =A0If you address the peripheral systems, the engine= itself is extremely robust. =A0(My 350hp peripheral-ported 3-rotor engine has only 4 moving pa= rts, all of which spin rather than stop and start, but that's a topic f= or another posting.)=A0=A0The rotary has shown to be more than capable of p= roducing very high power in racing applications. =A0In the Mazda series the= y typically run the engines for one or two seasons without overhaul. =A0The= rotary is a very tough little engine!

Is the Lycoming engine "safer"? =A0Maybe, maybe not. =A0But = if "safe" is the target to which we aim, then we should all stay = on the ground.=A0=A0

Mark=A0
Lancair ES, n/a 3-rotor

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 7:32 AM, <tednoel@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
While I am confident the Eagle V8 wil= l do well, based on the designer and many bits of the internals, it has pro= ven very expensive and time-consuming. Check in on the FlyRotary email list= (Marv runs it). There are rotaries of the appropriate power flying with go= od records. Many of the headaches have already had their aspirin taken. Unl= ess you are a bit of a masochist (which I didn't think I was), unfortun= ately the 1930's boat anchors remain the "safe" choice.

Ted Noel


---- Rod Pharis <rpharis@verizon.net> wrot= e:
> Many years back an apparently qualified and well healed small co= mpany began
> development of a 572 cid Chevy big-block engine converted for aircraft=
> applications, including a less expensive replacement for certain turboprop
> power-plants. =A0They = spent piles of money and many years of work, including a
> special sp= eed reduction unit. =A0In the end, not a single original part was
> r= etained, including the spark plugs. =A0The company was in poor financial > health at that point, and I believe another company bought that compan= y and
> the rights, and they apparently did no better with the projec= t even though
> they inherited many lessons learned from the first ow= ners. =A0As far as I can
> tell, the project was abandoned. =A0A single guy would have little cha= nce at
> success with a one-off attempt. =A0Don't even think abou= t it!!!!!!!!!!! =A0Even
> a small modification to an existing success= ful airplane engine would likely
> take deep pockets to be successful.
>
> Rod Pharis
>=
> From: Lancair Mailing List [mailto:lml@lancaironline.net] On = Behalf Of Gary
> Casey
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:23 AM
> To: lml@la= ncaironline.net
> Subject: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine
>= ;
> I have read with interest many of the posts on this subject. =A0I too,= had
> considered an automotive engine to the point I acquired the en= gine and
> designed most of the systems. =A0I was convinced (and stil= l am) that an
> automotive V8 run inverted, turbocharged with direct drive to the prop= could
> do an effective job. =A0But....
> Brent makes many goo= d points and I agree with them, but engines are
> inanimate objects a= nd don't respond to the intent of the designers - they
> only respond to the details of the design itself. =A0So what makes the
> liquid-cooled a= utomotive engine inappropriate for an aircraft application?
> Liquid = cooling helps, as a smaller bore with cooler surface temperatures
> a= llow a higher compression ratio, but the slower-running large displacement<= br> > aircraft engine has lower friction, negating the benefit of the higher=
> compression ratio. =A0An efficient radiator can cool with less pre= ssure drop,
> but it requires about twice the air flow of an air-cool= ed engine. =A0The
> liquid-cooled engine can be more compact, reducing the frontal area, b= ut the
> frontal area of a side-by-side seating aircraft is usually d= etermined by the
> cabin, not the engine. =A0The list goes on.
>= ;
> Is the aircraft engine old-fashioned? =A0The configuration has been ar= ound for
> a long, long time, but that doesn't have much to do wi= th the effectiveness
> of the engine. =A0The engineers at Lycoming and Continental have cherry-pi= cked
> the technologies developed by others that apply to aircraft en= gines, and
> developed some of their own. =A0Bottom line? =A0I'm = happy with the 50-year-old
> Lycoming in my ES. =A0And while I usually wish for a turbocharger when= getting
> out of my 3800 ft, 7000 ft elevation runway, once in the a= ir 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


--00151744813464feb304a494f211--