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.