Bulent Aliev wrote:

Ed,
glad to hear that the engine turned  out to be in good shape. Are you

going again

with the "plugs up" installation?
Bulent

You are not trying to push my anger button are you Bulent? :-)

Paul Lamar

Bulent,

Ed Anderson wrote:

 Its not a question of "going" with the plugs-up orientation "again",
that is what my motor mount and entire installations was designed around. I
would have to essential revamp everything FWF to change it.

 Paul, has pointed out his concerns about potential problems with the Plugs
Up orientation.  While I may not agree with Paul on the extent of risk
involved, I do agree that the engine is not oriented per what the design
engineers had in mind.  So any time you operate a mechanism in other than
its intended design configuration you may be undertaking certain unknown
risks.  Failures of the type that are attributed to pugs up have also
happened in rotaries in their normal configurations which are mainly
associated with overheating.  The bad NA 13Bs I have found almost always
have a failure with the rear rotor area.  If an apex seal has gone bad or a
coolant "O" rings starts to leak, it is generally the rear rotor not the
front one.  These failures of the rear rotor area is generally believed to
be associated with the  poorer heat transfer as the coolant has already been
heated by the front rotor. So part of the answer to keeping failures down in
either orientation is keeping the engine properly cooled.

  Finally, even thought my installation is "Plugs Up", it is only that way
because at the time that appeared to be the best answer to a number of
installation considerations in my RV-6A project.  I am not an advocate of
Plugs up orientation, but simply believe it is an viable alternative if
.

Ed

I can appreciate what Ed meant when he says "at the time that appeared to be 
the best answer" and I would not suggest he start over. Ed still needs to
fabricate a proper oil sump that will work with his installation. He is
having problems with oil leaks from his Ross re-drive which I think
are probably related to the higher oil level in his plugs up engine.

I agree with everything Ed said here except the last sentence. First, I cannot
think of a situation where normal orientation is not feasible. As I mentioned
before the engine is lower when installed in its intended up right orientation. 
If indeed normal orientation is not feasible then I say don't install a rotary. 
Your life and the lives of your passengers are not worth risking.

I don't think anybody would think of installing an air cooled aircraft
engine rotated 90 degrees. I also don't think a automotive V8 should
be installed 90 degrees or even 180 degrees like Steve Whitman did.
With all due respect even Steve Whitman was not infallible. Piston engines
can be made to work up side down but the inverted aircraft engines, like the 
MB600 series and the inline engines of long ago, were designed from scratch
to do so.

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org