|
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
----- Original Message -----
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" < 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)
|