X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <thomasmann51@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com ([209.85.210.180] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3)
  with ESMTPS id 5360334 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 19:02:37 -0500
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=thomasmann51@gmail.com
Received: by iabz7 with SMTP id z7so4036411iab.25
        for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:02:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        bh=x9K8R+vBbeO+UBzuryI+acEjLsvocrByZu6O8nPI6q0=;
        b=LVPJ43nmujNn17A2a6kQlYLV8aGSM2SxX7jGq6VNdxujQNlO6DEBxwQVcsg+yySi5u
         CWZO91r4HXV34wWNYlNdcOOakDmoIQGn3pHuGplH7SFl1QmILuHiX7FDxNBQpcaFvo5/
         U2ZSTwedP8ch5Mm0vZsX/fPiL5RQ84frgp39Q=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.135.1 with SMTP id po1mr7483659igb.26.1327276923231; Sun,
 22 Jan 2012 16:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.229.9 with HTTP; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:02:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <list-5360301@logan.com>
References: <list-5360301@logan.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 18:02:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAH_WSmpT5Bu=NmKvN2roWsagLTR8KEwJi6H8yWGp3LEwhBJ4ig@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion
From: Thomas Mann <thomasmann51@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f6432c2871bf404b726bdeb

--e89a8f6432c2871bf404b726bdeb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

When the majority of the reasons are "Cost" related, I get a little nervous.

My reasons for going with the rotary:

Less complexity (the typical pistons, valves, pushrod, etc. argument) which
equates to Greater Reliability

Less Oil Burn : if you told me I was going to have to put a quart of oil in
every 8-10 hours of operations for a car I would say you are crazy.

TBO - 50,000 miles is about 1000 hrs of operations. I have 90,000 on my
Safari and it's going to go well beyond the 2000 hrs that I would get out
of a Lycoming.

Back to cost - I'm not trying to save money by going with a rotary. I plan
on top-notch parts, (i.e. ceramic seals, etc.) and having the engine
balanced.

As far as Auto- Conversions, I'm not on board if it has pistons.
Again, my motivation is the simplicity of a rotary, not cheap.

--e89a8f6432c2871bf404b726bdeb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When the majority of the reasons are &quot;Cost&quot; related, I get a litt=
le nervous.<div><br></div><div>My reasons for going with the rotary:</div><=
div><br></div><div>Less complexity (the typical pistons, valves, pushrod, e=
tc. argument) which equates to Greater Reliability</div>
<div><br></div><div>Less Oil Burn : if you told me I was going to have to p=
ut a quart of oil in every 8-10 hours of operations for a car I would say y=
ou are crazy.</div><div><br></div><div>TBO - 50,000 miles is about 1000 hrs=
 of operations. I have 90,000 on my Safari and it&#39;s going to go well be=
yond the 2000 hrs that I would get out of a Lycoming.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Back to cost - I&#39;m not trying to save money by goin=
g with a rotary. I plan on top-notch parts, (i.e. ceramic seals, etc.) and =
having the engine balanced.</div><div><br></div><div>As far as Auto- Conver=
sions, I&#39;m not on board if it has pistons.=A0</div>
<div>Again, my motivation is the simplicity of a rotary, not cheap.=A0</div=
>

--e89a8f6432c2871bf404b726bdeb--