Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=74.208.4.194; envelope-from=patrick@hoffmann1.net
Message-ID: <4F1DA3C8.6090003@hoffmann1.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:15:36 -0600
From: Patrick <patrick@hoffmann1.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0.1) Gecko/20111221 Firefox/9.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.6.1
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-5361226@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-5361226@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

If it's more reliable and cheaper, double bonus. If it's just cheaper, I 
start getting scared.

Imagine the conversation with your spouse if the airplane suddenly 
becomes a glider: "But Honey, I saved a bunch of money by switching to 
cheap parts...."
Can't see that ending well.

John Slade's descriptive narration of the failures of several turbos 
that he used _because_ they were cheap is an excellent example. In the 
end, the correct part was more reliable and ultimately cheaper than the 
cost of buying three "cheap" turbos and the resulting engine overhaul.
BTW: Thank You, John, for your website.  I learned a lot and appreciate 
your candor.  It will save lives, money, and time for others if they 
learn from you.

Patrick H


Dale_R wrote:
> 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.
>