X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imo-m20.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.1] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.10) with ESMTP id 2180655 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:20:59 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.137.1; envelope-from=Ehkerr@aol.com Received: from Ehkerr@aol.com by imo-m20.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r9.2.) id q.bfb.1b20361a (30738) for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:20:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Ehkerr@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:20:06 EDT Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Contrasting view point was [FlyRotary] Re: AirVenture Souviner To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1184602806" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5129 X-Spam-Flag: NO -------------------------------1184602806 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/16/2007 11:21:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com writes: Hummm, while I am a cast-in-stone rotary type, I really don't see any point in throwing stones at those alternate engine types who prefer pistons. Many smaller airframes simply couldn't use a rotary even if they wanted to. My view is that us "Alternative Engine" types all face the same "hostile" outside world and need to stick together. Certainly we can (and will) debate the relative merits of each choice, but I certainly feel that somebody that successfully puts a covair,Subaru, V-6, etc, in an project and safely gets airborne is a kindred soul. Now, if the logo has something like an "X" across a symbol for a certified, expensive and all to prone to cost $$, aircraft engine, - that - I might could sign on for {:>). But, since I won't be going to Oshkosh, I guess I don't have to be concerned about it. Just my viewpoint on the topic FWIW Ed Hi Ed, et al, As aviators I agree we are kindred souls. But, believing as I do that the rotary engine is so far superior to piston engines I could not endorse a message that promotes both pistons and rotaries. I understand Pat only wishes to promote automotive conversions but, for some rotary enthusiasts, the hat design can be an uncomfortable compromise. Ernie ************************************** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour -------------------------------1184602806 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 7/16/2007 11:21:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, eanders= on@carolina.rr.com writes:
Hummm, while I am a cast-in-stone rotary ty= pe, I really don't see any point in throwing stones at those alternate=20= engine types who prefer pistons.  Many smaller airframes simply co= uldn't use a rotary even if they wanted to.
 
My  view is that us "Alternative Engin= e" types all face the same "hostile" outside world and need to stick togethe= r.  Certainly we can (and will) debate the relative merits of each choi= ce, but I certainly feel that somebody that successfully puts a covair,Subar= u, V-6, etc,  in an project and safely gets airborne is a kindred soul.=
 
Now, if the logo has something like an "X"&= nbsp;  across a symbol for a certified, expensive and all to prone to c= ost $$, aircraft engine, - that - I might could sign on for {:>).&nb= sp; But, since I won't be going to Oshkosh, I guess I don't have to be conce= rned about it. 
 
Just my viewpoint on the topic FWIW<= /DIV>
 
Ed
Hi Ed, et al,
As aviators I agree we are kindred souls. But, believing= as I do that the rotary engine is so far superior to piston engines I could= not endorse a message that promotes both pistons and rotarie= s. I understand Pat only wishes to promote automotive conversions=20= but, for some rotary enthusiasts, the hat design can be an uncomfortable&nbs= p;compromise.
Ernie



= Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL.com.=
-------------------------------1184602806--