[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



No such thing as a stupid question.  It's how we get information.  But then,
in this case...; no, just kidding.

I'm guessing your question was aimed more toward the auto conversion idea
than whether it's a Lyc or a Franklin.  Overall it is trying to use
state-of-the-art engine design instead of 40-year old design, and the
economies and proving of large scale production.  A few things that this
translates into that quickly come to mind are:

1.)  If you can do the installation package yourself you can save many
thousands of dollars.

2.)  Overhaul of the engine later will cost probably less than  that of an
aircraft engine.

3.)  20 to 25% lower fuel consumption (piston engines).

4.)  Considerable less vibration.

5.)  For the same reason we don't all fly airplanes with the propellers in

6.)  Better power to weight ratio with a rotary or the new all aluminum

7.)  Liquid cooling; avoids shock cooling considerations and contributes to
the higher efficiency already mentioned.

8.)  For the same reason that we don't all have ham and cheese sandwiches
for lunch.

9.)  Um-m-m-m-m,  let's see.....

10.)  Some people say better reliability; but I don't know.  Those Lycs have
been around so long, it's hard to imagine things that can go wrong that
haven't already been fixed.  Amazingly, new Ads still keep coming.

I'm personaly planning a Mazda 20B rotary conversion.  It's a robust, four
moving parts engine that will give me 50-60 more hp for about 20 to 25 lb.
more weight.  It's fuel consumption (miles/gal) advantage is less than that
of a piston engine; but we all know that it will go Hum-m-m-m-m-m instead of
Clankety, clankety, clankety.  And I expect to spend $5000 or $6000 less
than for a Franklin, or for a used Lyc and an overhaul.  I can apply that
toward a MT prop, if it doesn't weigh too much.

Reasons NOT to use an auto conversion:

1.)  The extra time and effort needed on installation and testing.

2.)  The extra time and effort needed on installation and testing.

3.)  The extra time and effort needed on installation and testing.  (Did I
say that already?)

Al Gietzen