Paul, What can you tell me about R B's aluminum side
 housings?
 Any good? Do they work? Know anybody that has them in
 service?
 Do you think they are a good idea?

 Skip

 We have no feedback on them. I have no idea. I guess they
 are too expensive
 for most people. If they work they would be ideal for a
one
 rotor
 as that is where engine weight is critical.

 BTW if I were Jim Mederer I would build or buy a LSA and
 install a one rotor p-port. It would be great PR and
people
 would flock to
 it simple because a Rotax 912 is now $20,000 US. Jim is a
 pilot and has
 built, flown and owns a Glasair.

 The two rotor weighs about the same as an IO-360 installed
 so there is
 little incentive to reduce engine weight there. One might
 wind up with  an aft CG problem.


Paul Lamar

Couldn't you compensate for the lighter weight by
mounting the engine
further forward, and making an appropriate increase in the
tubing
used to support the engine. Extra space under cowl allows
easier
service, longer nose = less drag?
C. Smith


Yes but.
More work as now you need a new cowl.

Paul Lamar


Hmmm. So we are using an experimental engine conversion in an experimental
plane, using mounts mostly designed for one off configurations, with cooling,
fuel, and ignitions systems of our own design, and we suddenly deem it
unusual, or too much trouble to design a cowl, that probably ends up
completely different from an air-cool opposed something, because a
new cowl is more work? HUH?!?
I'd like to know who, among the current successful rotary conversion
flyers is using a stock cowl, or that had to modify the stock
cowl so much that a clean sheet would have been comparatively
cost effective?
C. Smith

Most are using stock cowls. All those airplanes featured
on the ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net are stock cowls
except Mark Suspinski's.
As I said it adds to the work required for a 50 pound increase in payload
and a huge increase in the cost of the engine.

Paul Lamar