X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao03.cox.net ([68.230.241.36] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 985608 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:43:57 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.36; envelope-from=ALVentures@cox.net Received: from BigAl ([68.7.14.39]) by fed1rmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060215064149.IUVM20875.fed1rmmtao03.cox.net@BigAl> for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:41:49 -0500 From: "Al Gietzen" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do this? Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:43:20 -0800 Message-ID: <000e01c631fb$1c2fe110$6400a8c0@BigAl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C631B8.0E0CA110" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C631B8.0E0CA110 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Better go watch some Olympics, before I get myself in any more trouble = :-) =20 Yes; you are now definitely overstating and generalizing based on your = own bad experience. =20 Al =20 Whether you want to admit it or not, a well maintained certified type = engine is light years ahead in reliability. Remember, while we're working on = ours, tinkering, modifying, etc, they're going round, and round, and round the pattern without problems, day in, day out. =20 =20 Does this mean we should just pay whatever the cost is for a "real" = airplane engine? Well that depends on your goal. If you want the current best chance of success, and something that can be serviced at any airport in = the world, then yes it does. If you want something different, and are = willing to bet your life on a good challenge, then by all means, roll your own engine installation. It's only natural to think you can do better than = the standard, and for engineering types, it's a known disease :-) There are some really NICE installations ongoing now, and they may very well beat = the odds, but don't think Lycoming is going to feel threatened any time soon = :-) =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C631B8.0E0CA110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

Better go watch = some Olympics, before I get myself in any more trouble :-)

 <= /font>     

Yes; you are now definitely = overstating and generalizing based on your own bad experience.

 

Al

 <= /font>

Whether you want = to admit it or not, a well maintained certified type engine is light years ahead in reliability.  Remember, while we're = working on ours, tinkering, modifying, etc, they're going round, and round, = and round the pattern without problems, day in, day out.  =

 <= /font>

Does this mean we = should just pay whatever the cost is for a "real" airplane = engine?  Well that depends on your goal.  If you want the current best = chance of success, and something that can be serviced at any airport in the world, = then yes it does.  If you want something different, and are willing to = bet your life on a good challenge, then by all means, roll your own engine installation.  It's only natural to think you can do better = than the standard, and for engineering types, it's a known disease :-) =  There are some really NICE installations ongoing now, and they may very well beat = the odds, but don't think Lycoming is going to feel threatened any time soon = :-)

 <= /font>

 

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C631B8.0E0CA110--