Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: A little clarification...
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:45:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20050601024528.DXHK26972.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@smtp.west.cox.net>

Bill,

   In addition to what others have already said,

> different from a REAL airplane engine?

Keep in mind that the first "real" airplane engine was 
an adaptation of an automotive power plant (flying the 
Wright way.)  
 
> I am new to be reading this list and I seem to be terribly uneducated and
> stupid.  I know that this is true because I am seriously considering putting
> a rotary in a Lancair Legacy Fixed Gear.

   Dunno if this is supposed to be self-deprecating humor, 
but there are some who might consider your words as 
reflecting on the intelligence put into *their* choice of 
powerplant.

> ...  Other things that seem to be pretty basic and should
> have been solved by the certified industry 100 years ago, like how to run
> gas from the tank to the engine and back, are still being debated like we
> just realized we needed to consider it.

   One hundred years ago there *was* no aviation "industry".
Powered aviation was less than two years old.  Furthermore, 
current certificated technology was "state-of-the-art" 70 
years ago.  Now it's merely "good enough", as determined by 
a bunch of bureaucrats.

   And if you think it really IS good enough, then how does 
one explain that certificated airplanes still regularly 
"fall out of the sky" due to fuel starvation?  Sometimes, 
still with plenty of fuel onboard.

> There is a lot of discussion about the gentleman who died as to whether he
> had his fuel system set up correctly....How can this be?  How many different
> CORRECT ways to do it are there?  Is the fuel system for the rotary totally
> different from a REAL airplane engine?

   _Which_ real airplane?  More to the point, yes there are 
many ways, depending on the configuration of one's aircraft, 
to do it right.  Some ways are going to be more optimal 
than others.  There are almost unlimited ways to get it 
wrong.  That's what we're about: finding better ways to do 
things.  Sometimes we find ways that aren't better.  If we
survive the experience, we have the hope that we'll do 
better the next time.

> I know that this sound really critical, but I don't mean 
> I would really appreciate some help here.  I would like to build a plane and
> fly it.  Low on the build and high on the fly part.  I am not interested in
> doing R&D or starting a business building parts.

   Then buy a kit, and follow the instructions precisely.

   I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but too many folks come 
around wearing rose-colored glasses.  This is EXPERIMENTAL
aviation.  And alternative engines are even moreso.  Whether 
you use a Lycosaurus or not, you're going to have to label  
your Lancair as such in LARGE letters.  If you don't want to 
be part of the R&D effort, then wait a few years until 
omeone puts together a "firewall forward" (or -aft) package 
for your airframe.  If you have an airframe ready now, and 
you put in a rotary, you WILL be doing some R&D.

Regards,                     
Dale R.                              (___
COZY MkIV-R13B #1254          |----==(___)==----|     
Ch's 4, 5, 16 & 23 in progress      o/ | \o