X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:41:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.120] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4999284 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 31 May 2011 13:07:23 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.120; envelope-from=tednoel@cfl.rr.com X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=pLPlkKcK38cN4Cv4YkVeTGGRYpmKez/IrX640LVKWnc= c=1 sm=0 a=9TeGTiT7SGcA:10 a=Jhy8mP4OLzYA:10 a=5zEv8FOEouFFTgTFH6HffA==:17 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=fN7KZKRRAAAA:8 a=UretUmmEAAAA:8 a=9XMXwg4Ejr04l9H2aLcA:9 a=YGqGSw4IUGGZIvYeNOYA:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=4PR2P7QzAAAA:8 a=KdEEsWYSAnXNDzM12ocA:9 a=XdOHShe90XofJswLp6oA:7 a=djSSOgbfo6cA:10 a=5zEv8FOEouFFTgTFH6HffA==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 97.101.50.108 Received: from [97.101.50.108] ([97.101.50.108:63699] helo=[192.168.0.101]) by cdptpa-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 76/02-20202-82025ED4; Tue, 31 May 2011 17:06:49 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <4DE5202A.9070104@cfl.rr.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 13:06:50 -0400 From: Ted Noel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: Re: [LML] Re: L-IV Choice of Engine References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060604030809080904030300" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------060604030809080904030300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark, I'm a doctor. I know that "safe" is a relative evaluation, even if plaintiff's attorneys don't. 90% of all engine failures in aircraft may be directly traced to the design compromises required by 1930's technology air cooling. About 9% may be traced to 1930's magnetos. That leaves 1% for "other." Those numbers are what drove me to liquid cooling. Ted On 5/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mark Steitle wrote: > 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 --------------060604030809080904030300 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark,

I'm a doctor. I know that "safe" is a relative evaluation, even if plaintiff's attorneys don't.  90% of all engine failures in aircraft may be directly traced to the design compromises required by 1930's technology air cooling. About 9% may be traced to 1930's magnetos. That leaves 1% for "other."

Those numbers are what drove me to liquid cooling.

Ted

On 5/29/2011 4:47 PM, Mark Steitle wrote:
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
--------------060604030809080904030300--