|
|
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
|
|