|
|
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.
|
|