|
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.
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.
There is certainly sufficient room in the air for a
couple Lycomings {:>)
Ed
----- Original Message -----
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
Dyke
Delta/13B/RD1C/EC2
--------------
Original message from "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:
--------------
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 -----
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....
TJ
----- Original Message -----
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 -----
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 3:35
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re:
Questions from a potential rotaryphile
Ed Anderson wrote:
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
mail list, "COZY: Fuel issues with
auto conversions".
A *little* knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Sunday, May 21, 2006 7:48 AM
Subject:
[FlyRotary] Questions from a potential rotaryphile
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??
thanks,
Rich
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/
|