X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from [24.25.9.103] (HELO ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 988972 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:54:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.103; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-025-165.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.25.165]) by ms-smtp-04-eri0.southeast.rr.com (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id k1HGs3if024720 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:54:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <024801c633e2$7effda00$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: : Why do this? / was Another Rotary failure. Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:52:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0245_01C633B8.95E994B0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0245_01C633B8.95E994B0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bernie, My view is that if you do not feel comfortable flying behind a rotary = engine then, you are certainly making the right decision. After all, = given the expense involved in flying - if its not fun then why do it at = all. It is experimental and there is no (at this stage) standard = configuration, so each one is an experiment in itself. Hate to see you give up the rotary after all the work you have put in on = it. But, certainly if your spouse will not fly with you in it - then = certainly limits the amount of enjoyment. You gotta do what makes you feel comfortable. FWIW Ed Ed Anderson Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered Matthews, NC eanderson@carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message -----=20 From: WALTER B KERR=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:35 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do this? / was Another Rotary failure. 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" = 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. =20 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. =20 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? Bulent "Buly" Aliev Ser# 066 / N484BD http://tinyurl.com/dcy36 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. =20 Cheers, Rusty (one rotor, no prop)=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0245_01C633B8.95E994B0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bernie,
 
My view is that if you do not feel = comfortable=20 flying behind a rotary engine then, you are certainly making the right=20 decision.  After all, given the expense involved in flying - if its = not fun=20 then why do it at all.  It is experimental and there is no (at this = stage)=20 standard configuration, so each one is an experiment in = itself.
 
Hate to see you give up the rotary = after all the=20 work you have put in on it.  But, certainly if your spouse will not = fly=20 with you in it - then certainly limits the amount of = enjoyment.
You gotta do what makes you feel=20 comfortable.
 
FWIW
 
Ed
 
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary=20 Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 WALTER B = KERR
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, = 2006 11:35=20 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Why do = this? /=20 was Another Rotary failure.

Yes, flying is a risky business! We all believe we have a better=20 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=20 been very sucessful at it. My installation has worked fine, but = believe it=20 would be safer with Tracy's tried and proven system. My biggest = disappointment=20 has been my lack of confidence in going distant places because I see = Ed=20 rebuilding an engine in LA, Dave hauling an airplane back from N CA to = S CA,=20 and now Chuck for the 2nd time. I know we can and will explain the = problems.=20 The rotary is basically a more dependable peice of equipment, but I = was more=20 comfortable with a Lycoming which I flew to places that were not nice = to stop=20 in such as over Mount Redoubt and Cook's Inlet in Alaska. It is = interesting=20 and it would be fun to have a 3 or 4 to experiment and play around = with a=20 rotary, if you are young and energetic!
 
More power to all of you who are blazing the future of aviation = with=20 alternative engines, but once again with family and time = considerations=20 believe I would benefit from a lycoming. Do you wish to swap out your = 4 engine=20 for a rotary Charlie? Or is there anyone else out there with a = lycoming O-320=20 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=20 acknowledge that this is undoubtedly a relatively risky = venture.  Just=20 as private flying is relatively risky compared to commercial = flying. =20
 
This is a synopsis of the message I give anyone who asks = me about=20 the pros & cons of installing an alternative engine:
 
In choosing to do this, you are betting your life that you have = the=20 necessary skills and knowledge to develop a one of a kind aircraft=20 propulsion system - not a trivial task, and a far greater = challenge=20 than using time proven systems based on conventional aircraft=20 engines.   If your primary goal is to build an aircraft = and fly it=20 safely,  buy an aircraft engine from a reputable source and = install it=20 to the best of your abilities.   Do not consider cost as = the=20 primary reason for doing otherwise.  Only if you have some = 'Fire in the=20 Belly' to power your aircraft with some alternative should you even = consider=20 it.  If you do, there is no better alternative than the = Mazda=20 rotary.  
 
The up-side is the satisfaction gained from successfully = meeting the=20 challenge - it is beyond description.   If you save a = nickel=20 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=20 certified engines vs experimental with =91alternative=92=20 engines.

 

Al

 

Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Re: Another rotary failure

 

Rusty,

Couple of years ago we = lost 3 Cozy's=20 within few months due to Lycoming engine problems. Not landing = with engine=20 problem, but total lost of all 3 aircraft. Nobody said a word. = Like it was=20 the most ordinary thing?

Bulent=20 "Buly" Aliev

Ser# 066 /=20 N484BD



 

On Feb 13, = 2006, at=20 2:03 PM, Russell Duffy wrote:

 



 

On the = subject of=20 failures in general, am I the only one who thinks there have just = been way=20 too many of these in the last couple years?  In virtually = every case,=20 the engine has been the victim, rather than the cause of the = problem, but=20 to the casual observer, it looks bad for the rotary.  I'd = hate to=20 calculate the number of flight hours per serious problem for = currently=20 flying rotaries.  I'd also hate for the insurance companies=20 to do it.  Let's hope this trend doesn't=20 continue.  

 

Cheers,

Rusty = (one rotor,=20 no prop) 



 

 
------=_NextPart_000_0245_01C633B8.95E994B0--