X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.102] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1123857 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 May 2006 18:02:19 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4MM1WW2009321 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 18:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <000901c67deb$61754620$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 18:02:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C67DC9.D9FAAB20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C67DC9.D9FAAB20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kelly, One thing does come to mind, Tracy and I was discussing the article and = he mentioned two factors that may have a bearing. He stated that the PowerSport fuel control system did not have a = "leaning" function and was not the FADS?(sp) system that some think it = is. Further (if I recall correctly), he said the Lycoming did have a = FADS system. If correct, then this would have place the rotary fuel at = a disadvantage relative to the Lycoming. Tracy is obviously the one to explain this as he has a better grasp on = this aspect than I do. The thing that I think that's comes out loud and clear is that - here = was a nose to nose comparison and the best that anyone could come up = with to make the Lycoming look better (seeing as it lost the race) was = that the rotary burnt a bit more fuel and made a bit more noise. Given = that Aviation Mags are beholden to their advertisers, I for one do not = find this surprising. =20 Those who read between the lines will note that two identical model = aircraft were tested nose-to-nose and the one with the rotary engine = beat the Lycoming powered aircraft. Ok,it did not have the means to = lean the mixture aggressively and burnt a bit more fuel - but the = bottom line is the rotary out climbed and out sped the Lycoming = equipment aircraft. As best I recall when one car wins a car race - nobody ever mentions = (or cares) what its fuel consumption is, the fact that it was first is = all that matters. Now for those of us wanting an engine for day to day = operation that factor does matter. Even if the higher fuel burn is not = a product of different fuel management systems, I think we all realize = that its more than one factor to consider in selecting an engine. Fuel = burn is only one. Those that prefer Lycomings will continue to do so, those of us who = understand the strengths and weakness of the rotary will continue to = prefer the rotary.=20 There is certainly sufficient room in the air for a couple Lycomings = {:>) Ed =20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kelly Troyer=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:31 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile Ed, Al and all, My first post about the "Sport Aviation" Rotary/Lycoming = comparison questioned the fuel burn part of the test........It is my understanding that the = "Powersport" fuel system lacks a leaning system........Does anyone in the group know if = this is true ?? If this is true that would severely affect the Rotary fuel burn = numbers........On the other hand if the "Powersport" system has a leaning capability do the = owners know that the Rotary can be leaned very aggressively compared to the = Lycoming as proved by Tracy Crook and verified by many others........Tracy has reported = fuel specifics of as low as .47 lbs/hp/hr with aggressive leaning if I recall = correctly !! Jump in here and help defend the Rotary reputation Tracy , Ed and = any others now flying with "Real World Experience" !!! IMHO -- Kelly Troyer=20 Dyke Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2=20 -------------- Original message from "Ed Anderson" = : --------------=20 Good Luck, TJ. I have found that a lot of people just don't want = to be educated, they prefer their misperceptions. I still get people = who are convinced the rotary will never work because they have "seal = problems". Happened to be true back in '73-74 for a year or two - then = the Mazda engineers fixed the problem - but that is still what many = folks remember. I notice that the comments about the Sport Aviation article seems to = focus is on the fact that the rotaries were louder (true) and burn more = fuel (also true for those PP engines), but they didn't apparently notice = that the rotary beat the lycoming in power and speed. I mean more power = generally requires more fuel doesn't it? Just shows a basic lack on = understanding about engines in general in my opinion. I personally believe that a lot of folks just really don't want to = think they paid almost $30K for a Lycoming and a $4K rotary can beat it = (note the PowerSport rotaries are not in the $4K class {:>)). You = should have seen how deflated the Lycoming crowd was (some of which had = spent considerable $$ in "hopping" up their engines) when Tracy Crook = beat them in the Sun & Fun 100 race. You'll also notice that win did = not get any publicity to in any of the Aviation magazines - because they = know where their $$ come from. You'll also notice they then cancelled = the race event shortly thereafter - reportedly due to insurance = considerations - but we all know the REAL reason {:>). Ok, Ok, it = probably was insurance considerations and not the fact that a rotary was = winning air races, but it sounds good {:>) Sigh! I mean we know this is a Lycoming centric world - Well, = that just means more good cores for the rest of us {:>) Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Thomas y Reina Jakits=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 10:24 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile Welcome to the club! I am frequently on the PPRuNe forum and I ran a cross a Wankel = thread, with lots of misinformation about the Rotary. At least I tried to steer them in the right direction.... http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3D226770 TJ ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Ed Anderson=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:08 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile I'm a bit surprised hearing it came from Al Wick as he was on = this list for a while. I thought he had a better understanding of what = was going on with the rotary. But, you're right a little knowledge = means incomplete knowledge which can be dangerous. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Dale Rogers=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:35 PM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential = rotaryphile Ed Anderson wrote:=20 Clearly a person who has "heard" things about the rotary, = but does not know anything about them. Indeed. Rich was quoting Al Wick, from 5/20 posting on the = COZY_builders=20 mail list, "COZY: Fuel issues with auto conversions". A *little* knowledge is a dangerous thing. . ----- Original Message -----=20 From: ARGOLDMAN@aol.com=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:48 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Questions from a potential = rotaryphile =20 In a different forum, not related specifically to engines, = the following was stated, "...Rotary is different issue. Their unusual combustion = chamber requires them to mix 2 cycle oil with each tank. If they don't their = compression seals die prematurely. Just like your boat motor mix, I don't = see it as a big deal. In addition, if they use aviation fuel, they develop = power drop on departure and have to replace all their plugs before next = flight. This happens every 20 hours. They don't have solution for = this." What is the experience that you are having? Is there any = truth to this. If not true, where might this info have come from??=20 thanks, Rich -- Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C67DC9.D9FAAB20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Kelly,
 
One thing does come to mind,  Tracy and I = was=20 discussing the article and he mentioned two factors that may have a=20 bearing.
 
He stated that the PowerSport fuel control = system did not=20 have a "leaning" function and was not the FADS?(sp) system that some = think it=20 is.  Further (if I recall correctly), he said the Lycoming did have = a FADS=20 system.  If  correct, then this would have place the rotary = fuel at a=20 disadvantage relative to the Lycoming.
 
Tracy is obviously the one to explain this as = he has=20 a better grasp on this aspect than I do.
 
The thing that I think that's comes out loud and = clear is=20 that - here was a nose to nose comparison and the best that = anyone =20 could come up with to make the Lycoming look better (seeing as it lost = the race)=20 was that the rotary burnt a bit more fuel and made a bit more = noise.  Given=20 that Aviation Mags are beholden to their advertisers, I for one do not = find this=20 surprising. 
 
Those who read between the lines will note that=20 two identical model aircraft were tested nose-to-nose and the one = with the=20 rotary engine beat the Lycoming powered aircraft.  Ok,it did not = have the=20 means to lean the mixture aggressively  and burnt a bit = more fuel=20 - but the bottom line is the rotary out climbed and out sped the = Lycoming=20 equipment aircraft.
 
  As best I recall when one car = wins a car=20 race - nobody ever mentions (or cares) what its fuel=20 consumption is, the fact that it was first is all that = matters.  Now=20 for those of us wanting an engine for day to day operation that factor = does=20 matter.  Even if the higher fuel burn is not a product of = different fuel management systems, I think we all realize that its = more=20 than one factor to consider in selecting an engine. Fuel burn is only=20 one.
 
  Those that prefer Lycomings will continue = to do so,=20 those of us who understand the strengths and weakness of the rotary will = continue to prefer the rotary. 
 
 There is certainly sufficient room in the = air for a=20 couple Lycomings {:>)
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kelly = Troyer
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 2:31 = PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions from a=20 potential rotaryphile

Ed, Al and all,
    My first post about the "Sport Aviation"=20 Rotary/Lycoming comparison questioned
the fuel burn part of the test........It is my understanding that = the=20 "Powersport" fuel
system lacks a leaning system........Does anyone in the group = know if=20 this is true ??
    If this is true that would severely affect the = Rotary=20 fuel burn numbers........On the
other hand if the "Powersport" system has a leaning capability do = the=20 owners know
that the Rotary can be leaned very aggressively compared to the = Lycoming=20 as proved
by Tracy Crook and verified by many others........Tracy has = reported fuel=20 specifics
of as low as .47 lbs/hp/hr with aggressive leaning if I recall = correctly=20 !!
   Jump in here and help defend the Rotary reputation = Tracy ,=20 Ed and any others now
flying with "Real World Experience" !!! IMHO
--
Kelly Troyer
Dyke=20 Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2




--------------=20 Original message from "Ed Anderson" = <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:=20 --------------

Good Luck, TJ.  I have = found=20 that a lot of  people just don't want to be educated, they = prefer=20 their misperceptions.  I still get people who are convinced the = rotary=20 will never work because they have "seal problems".  Happened to = be true=20 back in '73-74 for a year or two - then the Mazda engineers fixed = the=20 problem - but that is still what many folks remember.
 
I notice that = the comments about=20 the Sport Aviation article seems to  focus is on the fact that = the=20 rotaries were louder (true) and burn more fuel (also true for those = PP=20 engines), but they didn't apparently notice that the rotary beat the = lycoming in power and speed.  I mean more power generally = requires more=20 fuel doesn't it?   Just shows a basic lack on = understanding about=20 engines in general in my opinion.
 
I personally believe that a = lot of folks=20 just really don't want to think they paid almost $30K for a Lycoming = and a=20 $4K rotary can beat it (note the PowerSport rotaries are not in the = $4K=20 class {:>)).  You should have seen how deflated the Lycoming = crowd=20 was (some of which had spent considerable $$ in "hopping" up their = engines)=20  when Tracy Crook beat them in the Sun & Fun 100 = race.  You'll=20 also notice that win did not get any publicity to in any of the=20 Aviation magazines - because they know where their $$ come = from. =20 You'll also notice they then cancelled the race event shortly = thereafter -=20 reportedly due to insurance considerations - but we all know the = REAL reason=20 {:>).  Ok, Ok, it probably was insurance considerations and = not the=20 fact that a rotary was winning air races, but it sounds good=20 {:>)
 
 
Sigh!    I = mean we know=20 this is a Lycoming centric world - Well, that just means more good = cores for=20 the rest of us {:>)
 
 
Ed
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Thomas=20 y Reina Jakits
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 = 10:24=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions=20 from a potential rotaryphile

Welcome to the = club!
 
I am frequently on the = PPRuNe forum=20 and I ran a cross a Wankel thread, with lots of misinformation = about the=20 Rotary.
At least I tried to steer = them in the=20 right direction....
http://ww= w.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=3D226770
 
 
TJ
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Ed Anderson
To: Rotary motors in = aircraft=20
Sent: Friday, May 19, = 2006 9:08=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Questions=20 from a potential rotaryphile

I'm a bit surprised = hearing it came=20 from Al Wick as he was on this list for a while.  I thought = he had=20 a better understanding of what was going on with the = rotary.  But,=20 you're right a little knowledge means incomplete knowledge which = can be=20 dangerous.
 
Ed
----- Original Message ----- =
From:=20 Dale = Rogers=20
To: Rotary motors in=20 aircraft
Sent: Sunday, May 21, = 2006 3:35=20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] = Re:=20 Questions from a potential rotaryphile

Ed Anderson wrote:=20
Clearly a person who has "heard" things = about the=20 rotary, but does not know anything about=20 them.

  =20 Indeed.

   Rich was quoting Al Wick, = from  5/20=20 posting on the COZY_builders
mail list, "COZY: Fuel issues = with=20 auto conversions".

   A *little* knowledge is = a=20 dangerous thing.


 
.
-----=20 Original Message ----- From:=20 ARGOLDMAN@aol.com = To:=20 Rotary motors = in=20 aircraft Sent:=20 Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:48 AM Subject:=20 [FlyRotary] Questions from a potential rotaryphile

 =20
In a=20 different forum, not related specifically to engines, the=20 following was stated,
 
"...Rotary is different issue. Their unusual = combustion=20 chamber requires them
to mix 2 cycle oil with each = tank. If=20 they don't their compression seals
die prematurely. = Just like=20 your boat motor mix, I don't see it as a big
deal. In = addition,=20 if they use aviation fuel, they develop power drop = on
departure=20 and have to replace all their plugs before next flight.=20 This
happens every 20 hours. They don't have solution = for=20 this."

What is the experience that you are having? = Is there=20 any truth to this. If not true, where might this info have = come=20 from??
 
thanks,
Rich

--

Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/

Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C67DC9.D9FAAB20--