X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-ma01.mx.aol.com ([64.12.206.39] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTP id 5360491 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:28:21 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.206.39; envelope-from=bktrub@aol.com Received: from mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com [172.29.41.74]) by imr-ma01.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q0N4RZAS028758 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:27:35 -0500 Received: from core-due003b.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-due003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.67.73]) by mtaomg-mb03.r1000.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id 6476EE000082 for ; Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:27:35 -0500 (EST) References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: bktrub@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CEA79E775F24E4_1AC0_7A9EA_webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 35363-STANDARD Received: from 69.84.254.253 by webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com (149.174.18.34) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:27:35 -0500 Message-Id: <8CEA79E77429440-1AC0-24557@webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [69.84.254.253] Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 23:27:35 -0500 (EST) x-aol-global-disposition: G X-AOL-SCOLL-SCORE: 0:2:444100032:93952408 X-AOL-SCOLL-URL_COUNT: 0 x-aol-sid: 3039ac1d294a4f1ce1b76a6c This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ----------MB_8CEA79E775F24E4_1AC0_7A9EA_webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've got less than $10,000 firewall forward, and that includes the prop and= custom cowl. My wife's new Subaru Legacy costs less than a lycoming 0-360,= and it comes complete with a bitchin stereo, heated seats and state of the= art electronics and engine. My whole airplane cost only a little more than= a new IO-360. Granted, it took 15 years to build, but the build process wa= s fun and I picked up a lot of fabrication skills, especially for the engin= e installation. And, it's water cooled. Airplane engine manufactures can no= t afford to innovate and do a lot of R&D because of the certification proc= ess and the relatively low numbers of engines produced each year. Automobil= e manufacturers can't afford to not to innovate in order to compete in the = marketplace. A small fraction of failures in their products will drive cons= umers to other manufactures. In the airplane world, how many choices do yo= u have to power your piston engine plane? How often do modern cars fail? Not too often considering the hours operated= versus maintainence hours.=20 That said, the only automobile engine I would use for my application (150-2= 00 hp) is the Mazda rotary. Automobile piston engines are not designed for = continuous 75% power output.=20 Brian Trubee RV-4, 13BREW N/A -----Original Message----- From: Chris Barber To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 7:57 pm Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion I disagree with you guys that diminish the cost benefit. I know it is popu= lar to assume that because it is cheaper it may be inferior, but what I see= m to see in the aviation market is that expensive does not necessarily tran= sfer into automatic savings or safety. Expensive, pedigreed crank shafts f= ail. If dollars transferred to reliable or safety, that would not happen. = I know we do not want to appear cavalier, but this "oh, I would never take= the cheaper route cuz it must be the more dangerous route" gets old. It i= s a red hearing and is just not borne out, in my arrogant opinion. Mindful= evaluation is called for. =20 =20 I know, now we will all jump on and say of course, we know that but it is a= n argument so overused it makes my eyes role. Yes, COST is a major factor.= If I can build as good or better then good on me. It is like the urban l= egend of all the money NASA spent to develop a pen that would write in spac= e....the Russians....well, they used a pencil. (I think Snopes debunked th= is even though it is a great story). I don't mind using the pencil....even= though a pen that writes upside down is kinda kewl (yes, I am dating mysel= f a bit with this reference....) =20 If you postpone replacing your plugs because they are $60 each or you just = buy a new set each year for your rotary at less than that for a full premiu= m set, that may be a false economy. How many certified engines are flying = well past their 2000 hrs? It is my understanding, a lot. Why, cost prohi= bitive to replace/rebuild? Or, maybe, it is just the if its not broke don'= t fix it. Who knows? =20 We seem embarrassed to acknowledge that price matters. If I can get an as = good or better product for much less I should not be embarrassed to do so, = I should herald it from the longest runway. I should be embarrassed to pay = more for the same thing. While I have enjoyed the build I would also likely= love a Cessna Corvallis. The reality is, on either my cop salary or my la= wyer income I could not afford it. My build gives me entertainment and sat= isfaction. That, my friends, is bang for the buck. =20 When I read "when cost is a major reason, I get nervous" I ask why. Expens= ive professionals built the Titanic, Armatures built the ark. We are by na= ture those that are willing to step up and try to build a better mousetrap.= ...why not be proud that we can do so at a fraction of the cost and still o= utperform those expensive lesser brands. Harbor Freight is a good example= . For things that are not life dependant and if I am not making my living = with the tools, are great for my use. Yes, I have bragging rights if I hav= e a complete set of Snap-on, or Craftsman or whatever, but the HF wrench wo= rked just as well for the purpose intended. NO, I would not likely want to= use a HF part to hold on my wing, but to turn the screw on the nav light o= n the end of that wing, no problem. =20 Another example of this not directly related to the engine is my Dynon Skyv= iew. It is far superior, from what I can see, than the most expensive, and= now outdated, steam guages even though many still wish to swear by steam g= auges, not to mentions the glass cockpits of the airlines that likely cost = in the hudred of thousands of dollars just a few years ago. More power to = them. I relish the fact I have options =20 If it were not for the bang for the buck, I would not be able to be involve= d to this degree with my passion for homebuilt aviation........cost matters= and I am not ashamed to say so. =20 Going is cheaper does not mean going inferior as long as you are mindful ab= out your decision. I hope to zoom zoom zoom past the boing bangers very so= on.....hopefully with a big Rotary knowing smile. =20 Flame suit on. =20 Chris Barber From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf of = Terry Adams [terrywadams@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:48 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion In that I had built the airplane I was also intrigued with converting an au= to engine for flight. The performance/reliability of the Mazda rotary look= ed good, the cost to install, maintain, and overhaul also looked good. Wha= t I experienced is that the total cost was very close to installing a mid-t= ime "1930s tractor engine". However, the length of time for me to convert/= install/plumb/duct/wire/cowl/test/etc the rotary was enormous. The satisfa= ction of all the pieces working together while the prop was lazily whirling= at 300 rpm, just priceless. Terry KSCK On 1/22/2012 11:18 AM, Patrick Panzera wrote:=20 Friends, I've recently been asked what are the top 7 reasons for using an auto onversion. answered with mine, but I'd like to hear (read) yours. Thanks! Pat -- omepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ rchive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.h= tml ----------MB_8CEA79E775F24E4_1AC0_7A9EA_webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
I've got less than $10,000 firewall forward, and that includes the pro= p and custom cowl. My wife's new Subaru Legacy costs less than a lycoming 0= -360, and it comes complete with a bitchin stereo, heated seats and state o= f the art electronics and engine. My whole airplane cost only a little= more than a new IO-360. Granted, it took 15 years to build, but the build = process was fun and I picked up a lot of fabrication skills, especially for= the engine installation. And, it's water cooled. Airplane engine manufactu= res can not afford to  innovate and do a lot of R&D because of the= certification process and the relatively low numbers of engines produced e= ach year. Automobile manufacturers can't afford to not to innovate in order to compete in the marketplace. A small fr= action of failures in their products will drive consumers to other manufact= ures.  In the airplane world, how many choices do you have to pow= er your piston engine plane?
 
How often do modern cars fail? Not too often considering the hour= s operated versus maintainence hours.
 
That said, the only automobile engine I would use for my application (= 150-200 hp) is the Mazda rotary. Automobile piston engines are not designed= for continuous 75% power output.
 
Brian Trubee
RV-4, 13BREW N/A


= -----Original Message-----
From: Chris Barber <cbarber@texasattorney.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sun, Jan 22, 2012 7:57 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion

I disagree with you guys that diminish the cost benefit.  I know = it is popular to assume that because it is cheaper it may be inferior, but = what I seem to see in the aviation market is that expensive does not&n= bsp;necessarily transfer into automatic savings or safety.  Exp= ensive, pedigreed crank shafts fail.  If dollars transferred to reliab= le or safety, that would not happen.  I know we do not want to appear = cavalier, but this "oh, I would never take the cheaper route cuz it must be the more dangerous route" gets old.  It is a red h= earing and is just not borne out, in my arrogant opinion. = Mindful evaluation is called for. 
 
I know, now we will all jump on and say of course, we know that but it= is an argument so overused it makes my eyes role.  Yes, C= OST is a major factor.  If I can build as good or better then good on = me.  It is like the urban legend of all the money NASA spent to develo= p a pen that would write in space....the Russians....well, they used= a pencil.  (I think Snopes debunked this even thou= gh it is a great story).  I don't mind using the pencil....even though= a pen that writes upside down is kinda kewl= (yes, I am dating myself a bit with this reference....)
 
If you postpone replacing your plugs because they are $60 each or you = just buy a new set each year for your rotary at less than that for a full p= remium set, that may be a false economy.  How many certified engines a= re flying well past their 2000 hrs?  It is my understanding, a lo= t.   Why, cost prohibitive to replace/rebuild?  Or, maybe, i= t is just the if its not broke don't fix it.  Who knows?
 
We seem embarrassed to acknowledge that price matters.  If I can = get an as good or better product for much less I should not be embarrassed = to do so, I should herald it from the longest runway. I should be emba= rrassed to pay more for the same thing. While I have enjoyed the build= I would also likely love a Cessna Corvallis.  The = reality is, on either my cop salary or my lawyer income I could not afford = it.  My build gives me entertainment and satisfaction.  That, my = friends, is bang for the buck.
 
When I read "when cost is a major reason, I get nervous" I ask why.&nb= sp; Expensive professionals built the Titanic, Armatures= built the ark.  We are by nature those that are willing to step up an= d try to build a better mousetrap....why not be proud that we can do so at = a fraction of the cost and still outperform those expensive lesser brands.&= nbsp;  Harbor Freight is a good example. = For things that are not life dependant and if I am not making my living wi= th the tools, are great for my use.  Yes, I have bragging = rights if I have a complete set of Snap-on, or Craftsman or wha= tever, but the HF wrench worked just as well for the pur= pose intended.  NO, I would not likely want to use a HF= part to hold on my wing, but to turn the screw on the nav<= A> light on the end of that wing, no problem.
 
Another example of this not directly related to the engine is my = Dynon Skyview.  It is far superior, from what I can see,= than the most expensive, and now outdated, steam guages even t= hough many still wish to swear by steam gauges, not to mentions the glass c= ockpits of the airlines that likely cost in the hudred of thous= ands of dollars just a few years ago.  More power to them.  I rel= ish the fact I have options
 
If it were not for the bang for the buck, I would not be able to be in= volved to this degree with my passion for homebuilt aviation...= .....cost matters and I am not ashamed to say so.
 
Going is cheaper does not mean going inferior as long as you are mindf= ul about your decision.  I hope to zoom zoom zoom<= /A> past the boing bangers very soon.....hopefully with a big R= otary knowing smile.
 
Flame suit on.
 
Chris Barber
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [flyrotary@lancaironline.net] on behalf o= f Terry Adams [terrywadams@sbc= global.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:48 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion<= br>

In that I had built the airplane I was also intrigued with converting an au= to engine for flight.  The performance/reliability of the Mazda rotary= looked good, the cost to install, maintain, and overhaul also looked good.=   What I experienced is that the total cost was very close to i= nstalling a mid-time "1930s tractor engine".  However, the length of t= ime for me to convert/install/plumb/duct/wire/cowl/test/etc the rota= ry was enormous.  The satisfaction of all the pieces working together = while the prop was lazily whirling at 300 rpm, just priceless.

Terry
KSCK


On 1/22/2012 11:18 AM, Patrick Panzera wrote:=20 
Friends,

I've recently been asked what are the top 7 reasons for using an auto
conversion.
I answered with mine, but I'd like to hear (read) yours.

Thanks!

Pat

--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.=
lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
----------MB_8CEA79E775F24E4_1AC0_7A9EA_webmail-d144.sysops.aol.com--