Okay... Here's a(nother/ better) idea. Put a rotary on an airplane
(modified Supercub) and fly the poop out of it. Fly to OSH with it. At
the O-show, tear it down with everybody watching (and a video camera
running). Measure all of the parts and compare to new. Log the data.
Put it back together only replacing the necessary gaskets. Fly it
during the airshow. Tear it down a couple of times during the show,
reassemble and fly. Fly it home. Fly it 1000 hours during the year.
Do not make any mods to the airplane. Do not tinker with it. Come
back to OSH during the O-show and do the same exact thing again -
demonstrating lack of significant wear. People are concerned about
trouble free durability as well as loss of coolant.
Test to Failure (Terminal Effects Research) is certainly done on lots of
products, though I disagree with a few of your examples.. For instance,
a canopy that fails on the chicken gun fails acceptance. A de/anti
icing system that actually "fails" causes a plane to crash - failing
acceptance. Products are sold to meet a performance specification.
During qualification, once they meet the spec, testing can stop. Plus,
TER is not typically demonstrated in a marketing gig.
Testing an engine without coolant is fine. I think it's a potentially
low-bang-for-the-buck demonstration however. Doing it once or twice
would probably suffice. Maybe once per year at SnF would be good.
You'd definitely have to do some characterization work up front to
understand how hard you can run the engine (oil temperature might be a
way to monitor this) and still have it run. If it can make 150hp for
20minutes after coolant loss, great. Tell people that's what you want
to show. Or, better yet, come up with a way for it to run for a full
hour without coolant (is this possible with adequate oil cooling)? That
would be spectacular, even if you could only make 40% power during the
run. Or run it at idle without coolant for an hour, and then ramp up
the output to something like 50% and then run it for 20minutes (possible?).
I think there's room (a need) for a multitude of ways to demonstrate the
value of the rotary engine.
Here is a list of common gripes (rumors):
1. Fragile (see above)
2. Needs a PSRU
3. Needs coolant/oil cooling systems
4. Burns too much gas (poor BSFC)
5. Loud/Sounds Weird
6. Exhaust gas is ungodly hot - impossible to build a reliable exhaust
7. Burns lots of oil
8. Installations look too frankensteinish (complicated).
What else?
Each of these items must be addressed somehow. An item can either be
addressed by reliably demonstrating well thought out (engineered)
solutions, or by a marketing ploy, or (preferably) by both.
I think people would be impressed by somebody doing aerobatics demos in
a Skybolt (or similar) that's powered by a rotary of some kind. Ideally
they would go on a circuit where they made at least 6 appearances during
a season. It doesn't have to be unlimited style aerobatics, just
something with loops, rolls, and spins. Racing is great too, but I
think racing by itself implies a specially built, high strung engine
where lots of black magic has been done. Aerobatics implies inherent
robustness. Racing implies "motorhead." Lots of people want to fly and
not have to be a motorhead to do it. I think rotary engines say
"motorhead" thus far.
Regards,
Matt-
------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen some of the pictures of some the conversions, they do "look"
rather
complicated until you examine them closely, the solution is to make a
conversion
that is REALLY neat (Pretty to look at), the neater it looks the more
wiring etc that is
hidden away as far as possible the simpler it "looks". It does require
planning to make
a conversion/installation look really "pretty" but the more things are
attempted to be hidden
away such as wiring, fuel lines, etc the better it "looks". Now keep in
mind that from a
show point view this is what always impresses most people that do not
know any better,
which is most people they like looking really "pretty" results. I'm
happy to admit this
does NOT make it more reliable but, in the eye of the beholder it
appears to, like it or
not looks count for more than most people realise.
I'm sure that others have heard the comment that "beauty is in the eye
of the beholder" well
don't be fooled, it is really in the eye of the spectator! most people
do not know what they
are really looking at, so are impressed by simple pretty looking
installations.
So make a "pretty conversion" for people to gawk at.
It is a good idea if it runs but certainly not critical.
Looks do impress, you need to impress with looks as well :)
Just another thought............
This is not to say that other options should not be on display as well.
However showing an
engine without water highlights a potential flaw "a cooling system"
which rarely ever causes a
problem, if it is maintained properly. It is more likely that a cooling
system will get a leak before
it fails completely, far better to demonstrate a version of that, the
engine will last much longer or
not fail at all. Again only a thought.
Regards David
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.