X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f52.google.com ([209.85.215.52] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.3) with ESMTPS id 5361600 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:48:02 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.215.52; envelope-from=rwstracy@gmail.com Received: by lagy4 with SMTP id y4so822679lag.25 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:47:24 -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=PZdpGtiuMsN9mhdJLrhCbTOMLitE3EqYuzxiQASSaOM=; b=IECGtZWDrFAkDBHFjC9Wr3pZVZ6DZckGd80O2imctRFBtgvzd1lXH4aEBQJW7TMXC9 zUqQcZo2b/iHug9VCcVXHfycWazLsy23Ldgs64xkOQADMn+8+7kSmHvoOU5MdaRHHtLy cq+MxW46TH6+LQN/OnQIGVm+Pmi8WGFZ6QcLg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.29.193 with SMTP id m1mr2746119lbh.12.1327355244407; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.1.200 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2012 13:47:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Top 7 reasons for using an auto conversion From: Tracy To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec55406dcd56bc704b738f9bf --bcaec55406dcd56bc704b738f9bf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Quote: "Try that same conversation after you just robbed the 401K to spend $18K on a certified engine without any of the accessories." That's actually a low ball figure. Van's Aircraft offers the Lyc. O - 360 180 HP EXPERIMENTAL version (non certified) for $26,700.00. And that's IF you buy it with the OEM discount when you buy an airplane kit. It's more if you only buy the engine alone or opt for the certified version. But that said, I used an alternative engine for only one reason. That would be the kick I get out of being airborne in the cockpit, looking down on the earth below and thinking , "Damn!, I engineered this installation and it actually WORKS!" That's priceless for me. I don't lie to myself and say this thing is more reliable than a certified engine. Statistically, it isn't but I don't care. This is how I chose to live my life and I'm willing to bet my skill and ability against the chance of dying. I have never recommended an alternative engine based on the idea that it is more reliable. Even if the engine itself is much better than a certified AC engine, that has little to do with the reliability of the whole installation. The real reliability of the installed engine is a function of the individual builder. It might be very reliable or it might be a death trap. I've seen instances of both. Tracy Crook On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ernest Christley wrote: > Patrick wrote: > > 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. > Try that same conversation after you just robbed the 401K to spend $18K > on a certified engine without any of the accessories. I don't see it > ending any better by using the defense that you paid to much for crap > parts. 8*) > > > > 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. > That's what we call "getting an education". John paid dearly so that we > can all be smarter. He did the hard work. Now that the education is > complete, we know the lower limit of acceptibility for a rotary aircraft > turbo. There was all sorts of turbo maps flying around that resulted in > the requirements parameters getting nailed down pretty well. John could > have started with the cheap parts, and kept spending more until he got > to a reliable solution. Or he could have spent the $20K that some > companies want for a certified turbo, and possibly still kept spending > more until he got to a reliable solution. I believe the final solution > is STILL a fraction of the cost of a certified turbo. > > Looking for a cheaper solution doesn't necessarily mean being stupid. > I've looked for the least expensive/lightest weight solution whenever I > could, but I never gave serious thought to using that really cheap epoxy > resin that the hardware store has on the shelf. It is not up to the > task requirements, and no amount of hand waving will make it so. But I > did come down from MGS's expensive 285 system, and used cheap ol' West > systems for the micro fill-and-sand. > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > --bcaec55406dcd56bc704b738f9bf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quote:=A0 "Try that same conversation after you just robbed the 401K t= o spend $18K
on a certified engine without any of the accessories."



= That's actually a low ball figure.=A0 Van's Aircraft offers the Lyc= . O - 360 180 HP EXPERIMENTAL version (non certified) for $26,700.00.=A0 An= d that's IF you buy it with the OEM discount when you buy an airplane k= it.=A0 It's more if you only buy the engine alone or opt for the certif= ied version.

But that said,=A0 I used an alternative engine for only one reason.=A0 = That would be the kick I get out of being airborne in the cockpit, looking = down on the earth below and thinking , "Damn!,=A0 I engineered this in= stallation and it actually WORKS!" =A0 That's priceless for me.=A0= =A0=A0 I don't lie to myself and say this thing is more reliable than a= certified engine.=A0 Statistically, it isn't but I don't care.=A0 = This is how I chose to live my life and I'm willing to bet my skill and= ability against the chance of dying.=A0 I have never recommended an altern= ative engine based on the idea that it is more reliable.=A0 Even if the eng= ine itself is much better than a certified AC engine, that has little to do= with the reliability of the whole installation.=A0 The real reliability of= the installed engine is a function of the individual builder.=A0 It might = be very reliable or it might be a death trap.=A0 I've seen instances of= both.

Tracy Crook




On Mon, Jan 2= 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:
Patrick wrote:
> 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 switchi= ng to
> cheap parts...."
> Can't see that ending well.
Try that same conversation after you just robbed the 401K to spend $1= 8K
on a certified engine without any of the accessories. =A0I don't see it=
ending any better by using the defense that you paid to much for crap
parts. =A08*)
>
> John Slade's descriptive narration of the failures of several turb= os
> 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 en= gine
> overhaul.
That's what we call "getting an education". =A0John pai= d dearly so that we
can all be smarter. =A0He did the hard work. =A0Now that the education is complete, we know the lower limit of acceptibility for a rotary aircraft turbo. =A0There was all sorts of turbo maps flying around that resulted in<= br> the requirements parameters getting nailed down pretty well. =A0John could<= br> have started with the cheap parts, and kept spending more until he got
to a reliable solution. =A0Or he could have spent the $20K that some
companies want for a certified turbo, and possibly still kept spending
more until he got to a reliable solution. =A0I believe the final solution is STILL a fraction of the cost of a certified turbo.

Looking for a cheaper solution doesn't necessarily mean being stupid. I've looked for the least expensive/lightest weight solution whenever I=
could, but I never gave serious thought to using that really cheap epoxy resin that the hardware store has on the shelf. =A0It is not up to the
task requirements, and no amount of hand waving will make it so. =A0But I did come down from MGS's expensive 285 system, and used cheap ol' W= est
systems for the micro fill-and-sand.

--
Homepage: =A0http:/= /www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: =A0 http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists= /flyrotary/List.html

--bcaec55406dcd56bc704b738f9bf--