|
Yes, flying is a risky business! We all believe we have a better mousetrap,
especially an engineer with 33 years in the turbojet design business. If I had
to do over, I would copy Tracy to nth detail since he has been very sucessful at
it. My installation has worked fine, but believe it would be safer with Tracy's
tried and proven system. My biggest disappointment has been my lack of
confidence in going distant places because I see Ed rebuilding an engine in LA,
Dave hauling an airplane back from N CA to S CA, and now Chuck for the 2nd time.
I know we can and will explain the problems. The rotary is basically a more
dependable peice of equipment, but I was more comfortable with a Lycoming which
I flew to places that were not nice to stop in such as over Mount Redoubt and
Cook's Inlet in Alaska. It is interesting and it would be fun to have a 3 or 4
to experiment and play around with a rotary, if you are young and
energetic!
More power to all of you who are blazing the future of aviation with
alternative engines, but once again with family and time considerations believe
I would benefit from a lycoming. Do you wish to swap out your 4 engine for a
rotary Charlie? Or is there anyone else out there with a lycoming O-320 who
would like to swap installations.
Bernie
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:24:12 -0500 "Tracy Crook" < lors01@msn.com> writes:
Interesting, yes, but I doubt it would be encouraging. I fully
acknowledge that this is undoubtedly a relatively risky venture. Just as
private flying is relatively risky compared to commercial flying.
This is a synopsis of the message I give anyone who asks me about
the pros & cons of installing an alternative engine:
In choosing to do this, you are betting your life that you have the
necessary skills and knowledge to develop a one of a kind aircraft propulsion
system - not a trivial task, and a far greater challenge than using
time proven systems based on conventional aircraft engines. If
your primary goal is to build an aircraft and fly it safely, buy an
aircraft engine from a reputable source and install it to the best of your
abilities. Do not consider cost as the primary reason for doing
otherwise. Only if you have some 'Fire in the Belly' to power your
aircraft with some alternative should you even consider it. If you
do, there is no better alternative than the Mazda rotary.
The up-side is the satisfaction gained from successfully meeting the
challenge - it is beyond description. If you save a nickel in
the process, consider it a small bonus.
Tracy
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
A very interesting comparison
would be accident/incident rates for experimental with certified engines vs
experimental with ‘alternative’ engines.
Al
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure
Rusty,
Couple of years ago we lost 3 Cozy's
within few months due to Lycoming engine problems. Not landing with engine
problem, but total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. Like it was
the most ordinary thing?
On Feb 13, 2006, at 2:03
PM, Russell Duffy wrote:
On the subject of
failures in general, am I the only one who thinks there have just been way
too many of these in the last couple years? In virtually every case,
the engine has been the victim, rather than the cause of the problem, but to
the casual observer, it looks bad for the rotary. I'd hate to
calculate the number of flight hours per serious problem for currently
flying rotaries. I'd also hate for the insurance companies to do
it. Let's hope this trend doesn't
continue.
Rusty (one rotor, no
prop)
|