Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.180; envelope-from=dale.rog@gmail.com
Message-ID: <4F1D90AC.6030605@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:54:04 -0700
From: Dale_R <dale.rog@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion
References: <list-5360339@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5360339@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/22/2012 5:02 PM, Thomas Mann wrote:
> 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
>
Sorry to play "Devil's Advocate", but I have to agree with Al W on part 
of this.

The jump from "simplicity of fewer components" to "increased 
reliability" is partially an illusion.  The reliability that needs to be 
compared is system-to-system, not system-to-component.  As Ernest C. 
pointed out, the most likely way to get an inexpensive AND reliable 
"auto conversion" is to copy another successful (i.e. flying) 
installation.  Do ~anything~ differently will likely result in more 
expense (fixing what didn't work out) and reduced reliability during the 
development phase.

 > 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.

I may be foolish - especially considering my current financial situation 
(certainly, most of my Canard associates think so) - but I'm in 
agreement with those who are willing to spend the extra sweat-equity to 
help advance the knowledge base for the rotary - so that, a few years 
down the road, some new builder will be able to put together a package 
of components for a rotary installation (in a canard) with full 
confidence that it will outperform a Lycosaurus installation in every way.

-- 
Dale_R
Cozy MKIV #497