X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao08.cox.net ([68.230.241.31] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.7) with ESMTP id 966537 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 03 Feb 2006 16:41:17 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.31; envelope-from=ronmilligan@cox.net Received: from [172.18.180.8] (really [172.18.180.20]) by fed1rmmtao08.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060203213759.UKRV26964.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@[172.18.180.8]> for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:37:59 -0500 X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528) From: To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: What about an air-cooled rotary? Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2006 16:34:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20060203213759.UKRV26964.fed1rmmtao08.cox.net@[172.18.180.8]> Actually, the Opsrey has the ability to turn both rotors with one engine. It is quite a complex system. > > From: Ernest Christley > Date: 2006/02/03 Fri PM 04:33:31 EST > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: What about an air-cooled rotary? > > Russell Duffy wrote: > > > Check out the dimesional drawings. Is that big round disk on the output > > shaft a blower? I'd hate to think that he might have somehow procured a > > patent on that particular idea. > > > > > > Looks like an enclosure for a flywheel. Note the starter poking into > > it from the engine side. > > > > Just can't wait for that flying car to get finished. I imagine > > they're still trying to get the MTBF (Mean Time Between FATALITY) up > > to double digit minutes :-) > > > What is that hose looking thing coming off and around the engine? > Forced cooling for an alternator? > > I can wait. Moller's whole concept is idiotic from the drawing-board, > as is the Marine's newest money pit. It grates my last nerve that > everyone doesn't see how foolish the concept is from basic principles of > common sense. It's a completely "fail-disastrous" design, in that if > you lose an engine there is no way to have a controlled decent. > Helicopters have autorotation, planes have glide ratio, balloons tend to > deflate slowly and don't depend on a complicated machine that's trying > to throw itself apart in the first place. Anything designed to fly by > balancing a load between running engines is criminal foolishness. An > engine gives out (high likelyhood), what'r ya' gonna do now? ... DIE!! > > The Marines are doubly guilty. The operational profile for the Osprey > is to insert and remove troops in close quarters with the enemy. One > bullet to one engine and it's game over. > > Please excuse my rant. Do not archive. Off-topic. (Probably) complete > bull$n17 > > -- > ,|"|"|, Ernest Christley | > ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder | > o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org | > > -- > Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/ >