Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.143.101; envelope-from=Berniehb7448@wmconnect.com
From: Berniehb7448@wmconnect.com
Message-ID: <cb6.5217769b.377935d9@wmconnect.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:08:41 EDT
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: More progress, more questions....
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_cb6.5217769b.377935d9_boundary"


--part1_cb6.5217769b.377935d9_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The anti-rotary sentiments are out there in many shapes.
The other day I was surfing for PSRUs, when I read a PSRU manufacturer's 
diatribe about why he was NOT making PSRUs for the Mazda. Basically he focused 
on the real and rumored difficulties, past and present, of Mazda rotaries 
used on aircraft. This had nothing to do with PSRUs at all, but with his 
prejudiced thinking. There are a lot of rotaries out there being used in 
aircraft, and a lot of progress made in making them work. I, for one, believe the 
rotary has the potential of making the piston world get smaller and smaller - 
this is the real secret fear of all the piston-heads - loss of prestige and 
money..
Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot an important thing: Lycoming and Continental 
designed their engines, and they performed perfectly right away, never needing 
trials, never experiencing problems, never having to issue product warnings 
or recalls, right, guys!!?? No wonder all the rotary-experimenting poor 
slobs need to be put straight immediately and often! (For you concrete thinkers 
out there, this is sarcasm - I don't want to be blasted mistakenly.)
BTW, does anyone have a list of PSRU's that are also made for rotaries? The 
emphasis today seems to be on geared PSRUs, why is that? What scientific 
factual reasons prevent us from considering cog belts or chains?
Thank you. 

--part1_cb6.5217769b.377935d9_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10>The anti-ro=
tary sentiments are out there in many shapes.
<BR>The other day I was surfing for PSRUs, when I read a PSRU manufacturer=
's diatribe about why he was NOT making PSRUs for the Mazda. Basically he=
 focused on the real and rumored difficulties, past and present, of Mazda=
 rotaries used on aircraft. This had nothing to do with PSRUs at all, but=
 with his prejudiced thinking. There are a lot of rotaries out there being=
 used in aircraft, and a lot of progress made in making them work. I, for=
 one, believe the rotary has the potential of making the piston world get=
 smaller and smaller - this is the real secret fear of all the piston-head=
s - loss of prestige and money..
<BR>Oh yeah, silly me, I forgot an important thing: Lycoming and Continent=
al designed their engines, and they performed perfectly right away, never=
 needing trials, never experiencing problems, never having to issue produc=
t warnings or recalls, right, guys!!?? No wonder all the rotary-experiment=
ing poor slobs need to be put straight immediately and often! (For you con=
crete thinkers out there, this is sarcasm - I don't want to be blasted mis=
takenly.)
<BR>BTW, does anyone have a list of PSRU's that are also made for rotaries=
? The emphasis today seems to be on geared PSRUs, why is that? What scient=
ific factual reasons prevent us from considering cog belts or chains?
<BR>Thank you. </FONT></HTML>

--part1_cb6.5217769b.377935d9_boundary--