X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from imr-da02.mx.aol.com ([205.188.105.144] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.4) with ESMTP id 4181043 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:53:40 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.188.105.144; envelope-from=Bktrub@aol.com Received: from imo-da02.mx.aol.com (imo-da02.mx.aol.com [205.188.169.200]) by imr-da02.mx.aol.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o2RKqjoC009517 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:45 -0400 Received: from Bktrub@aol.com by imo-da02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v42.9.) id q.da4.204b611 (43963) for ; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com (smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com [64.12.95.103]) by cia-dd02.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILCIADD024-b2ca4bae7015af; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:40 -0400 Received: from webmail-d043 (webmail-d043.sim.aol.com [205.188.167.99]) by smtprly-me02.mx.aol.com (v127_r1.2) with ESMTP id MAILSMTPRLYME024-b2ca4bae7015af; Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:37 -0400 References: To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:37 -0400 X-AOL-IP: 208.46.237.130 In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI MIME-Version: 1.0 From: bktrub@aol.com X-MB-Message-Type: User Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BD_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com" X-Mailer: AOL Webmail 31226-STANDARD Received: from 208.46.237.130 by webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com (205.188.167.99) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Sat, 27 Mar 2010 16:52:37 -0400 Message-Id: <8CC9C06914B0FE8-E80-DDAB@webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com> X-Spam-Flag:NO X-AOL-SENDER: Bktrub@aol.com ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BD_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Making some engine parts to facilitate a conversion and producing a compre= hensive firewall forward package are two entirely different things. From= a liability standpoint, I'd be really reluctant to jump into making a fir= ewall forward package for homebuilders. If anyone wants to produce someth= ing to help promote rotary engine conversions, the best approach in my opi= nion is to produce the items needed to build up a good lightweight core en= gine.Tracy already makes pretty much everything else, short of airframe sp= ecific items to facilitate a conversion. I agree, Tracy has a good busines= s model. I was really encouraged by the progress Powersport made, especially when= it was in the hands of Everett Hatch and Steve Beckham.When Ratek took it= over, they spent a lot of time dealing with model specific issues like co= oling and mounting the engine. If they had specialized in building a gener= ic lightweight engine, and left the installation details like mounting and= exhaust up to the builder, I think they would have been ahead of the game= at this point. (this is my opinion, I wasn't there, I'm just posting my= opinions. I'm wrong sometimes, just ask my wife). If there were a few mo= re items available, like the elusive wear-coated aluminum end and middle= housings with built- in engine mount shock mount provisions, P-port modif= ied rotor housings, lightweight wrapover intake manifold and plenum(with= a choice of forward or rear facing throttle body), then I think we'd be= closer to having a more universal rotary engine package. A big stumbing= block is how to mount the rotary. How about configuring it in such a way= so as to be able to be mounted right up to a conical mount? This would le= ad up to the ability for various builders to step in and mass produce cow= ls, exhaust systems, and cooling systems for the variaous Van's aircraft= with rotary engines.=20 The rotary engine is a great engine, if these four things- cooling, igniti= on, fuel delivery and mounting, and exhaust are done correctly, it can't= be beat. The mounting, exhaust system and wiring are things best left to= the builder. Over time, enough builders of a specific model airplane will= arrive at the best solution for each model of plane.=20 Brian Trubee -----Original Message----- From: Mike Wills To: Rotary motors in aircraft Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 9:02 am Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) Thanks for the recap Bill. I agree, Ratech went way off the course with th= eir glass panel stuff - should have stuck to the original plan. They were= listed in the latest Kitplanes engine round up so I assume that means the= y at least responded to Kitplanes data call whether or not they are still= actively selling anything. =20 I guess my point (and I'm sure you are well aware) was that many if not mo= st of us have gone this route at least partially because of cost. I'm surp= rised that Eggenfellner has managed to remain in business selling FWF pack= ages that rival the cost of a new Lyc. A friend bought one and spent many= hours (and months) working out the bugs to actually make it work. =20 Happy to see your last sentence. Tracy indeed has what I believe to be the= right business model. Without him I doubt there would be many rotaries fl= ying and I doubt there would be much activity on this list. I hope that yo= ur efforts serve to fill some of the gaps that Tracy doesn=E2=80=99t addre= ss (engines, intakes, exhausts) using the same keep it basic but functiona= l model that Tracy uses. =20 To start with, I would like to place an order for the 164 pound, over 200H= P engine please.=20 =20 Mike =20 From: WRJJRS@aol.com=20 Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:41 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long) In a message dated 3/26/2010 6:42:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, rv-4mike@co= x.net writes: George, =20 Hoping that they produce something that not only works, but is within fina= ncial reach. The history to date of FWF packages (including the last itera= tion of Powersport) include lots of cases of pricing that is simply out of= reach. I like the concept of the rotary or wouldn=E2=80=99t be flying one= , but given the choice between being a beta tester for somebody's brand ne= w FWF auto conversion versus buying a brand new Lyc from Vans for the same= or less money, I'd choose the Lyc. =20 Mike Wills Mike and group, A little history. There is something that needs to be said. There are really two distinct "P= owersports." The original was Everett Hatch, Steve Beckham, and their exce= llent machinist Francis. These guys developed some truly spectacular equip= ment. The "Superlite" engine was developed for NASA and was so far removed= from the original Mazda as to be unrecognizable. They developed a spur ge= ar planetary custom designed for the task, and a great pendulous damper th= at worked so well that the engine could be idled at 1000 RPM without the= shakes. BTW This should put to rest the total BS that p-port engines won'= t idle! This was a system that made over 200 HP and weighed 164 pounds FWF= . After building this machine they took stock and realized that they would= have to sell the package for around $25,000. (In the 90s) They were hones= t and figured they would have a hard sell at that cost. They developed a= package that they called the "Iron Eagle" which was basicly a standard Ma= zda modified to live in aircraft use. They used an aircraft leanable mecha= nical fuel injection and the simplest ignition that was dead reliable. Thi= s package used the internal ring gear PSRU designed to be simpler and chea= per than the custom planetary. This package was ready to sell and they had= set an intended price of $14,000. I think they would have had trouble mak= ing them fast enough at that price. This information is all in back issues= of Sport Aviation. Tragically Everett was killed in an aerobatics crash= at that time. Steve and Everett had been partners in business for over 20= years, including a long time before Powersport and Steve was so hurt by= the loss of his friend that he could not continue.=20 Steve sold the Powersport business to Ratek Machine in Wisconsin. This is= the "current" Powersport. They had grand ideas that they would change the= package and make it their own. They designed their own EMS which took a= long time and of course adds a great deal to the development cost of the= package. There were some modifications to the PSRU done as a masters thes= is by Steve Weinzerl. This is basic information that is on their web site.= Every change costs money and the final price they put on the system reall= y takes it out of the low price zone. It was their right to make the chang= es they wanted to after they bought the company but, and understand that= this is my personal opinion, I think that they shot themselves in the foo= t. If they had sold the original package while developing the updates conc= urrently I believe they really would have had something. People really don= 't understand how much work goes into developing a market-ready product.= Ratek has suffered the ills of the current economy as much as anyone. I= don't know if they are currently willing to produce or sell the package.= I am truly saddened by this because I have seen the original stuff and it= was a flyable package. I am a mechanical engineer myself and I've never= seen a more obvious example of deviating from the K. I. S. S. principle.= We need a flight-ready engine and PSRU that is way below the price of a= standard aircraft engine if we want the thing to sell. Tracy is the only= one so far to keep the price down and his stuff is probably in 3/4 of the= rotary engines flying. We need to get back to the basics. Bill Jepson ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BD_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="--------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BE_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com" ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BE_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
Making some engine parts to= facilitate a conversion and producing a comprehensive firewall forward pa= ckage are two entirely different things. From a liability standpoint, I'd= be really reluctant to jump into making a firewall forward package for ho= mebuilders.  If anyone wants to produce something to help promote rot= ary engine conversions, the best approach in my opinion is to produce the= items needed to build up a good lightweight core engine.Tracy already mak= es pretty much everything else, short of airframe specific items to facili= tate a conversion. I agree, Tracy has a good business model.
 
 I was really encourag= ed by the progress Powersport made, especially when it was in the hands of= Everett Hatch and Steve Beckham.When Ratek took it over, they spent a lot= of time dealing with model specific issues like cooling and&nbs= p;mounting the engine. If they had specialized in building a generic&= nbsp;lightweight engine, and left the installation details like= mounting and exhaust up to the builder, I think they would have been ahea= d of the game at this point.  (this is my opinion, I wasn't there, I'= m just posting my opinions. I'm wrong sometimes, just ask my wife). &= nbsp;If there were a few more items available, like the elusive wear-coate= d aluminum end and middle housings with built- in engine mount shock mount= provisions, P-port modified rotor housings, lightweight wrapover intake= manifold and plenum(with a choice of forward or rear facing throttle body= ), then I think we'd be closer to having a more universal rotary engine pa= ckage. A big stumbing block is how to mount the rotary. How about con= figuring it in such a way so as to be able to be mounted right up to a con= ical mount? This would lead up to the ability for various builders&nb= sp; to step in and mass produce cowls, exhaust systems, and cooling= systems  for the variaous Van's aircraft with rotary engines.
 
The rotary engine is a grea= t engine, if these four things- cooling, ignition, fuel delivery and mount= ing, and exhaust  are done correctly, it can't be beat. &nb= sp;The mounting, exhaust system and wiring are things best left to the bui= lder. Over time, enough builders of a specific model airplane will arrive= at the best solution for each model of plane.
 
Brian Trubee
 
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Wills <rv-4mike@cox.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Sat, Mar 27, 2010 9:02 am
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (Long)

Thanks for the recap Bill. I agree, Rat= ech went way off the course with their glass panel stuff - should have stu= ck to the original plan. They were listed in the latest Kitplanes engine= round up so I assume that means they at least responded to Kitplanes data= call whether or not they are still actively selling anything.
 
I guess my point (and I'm sure you are= well aware) was that many if not most of us have gone this route at least= partially because of cost. I'm surprised that Eggenfellner has managed to= remain in business selling FWF packages that rival the cost of a new Lyc.= A friend bought one and spent many hours (and months) working out the bug= s to actually make it work.
 
Happy to see your last sentence. Tracy= indeed has what I believe to be the right business model. Without him I= doubt there would be many rotaries flying and I doubt there would be much= activity on this list. I hope that your efforts serve to fill some of the= gaps that Tracy doesn=E2=80=99t address (engines, intakes, exhausts) usin= g the same keep it basic but functional model that Tracy uses.=
 
To start with, I would like to place an= order for the 164 pound, over 200HP engine please. 3D"Smile=
 
Mike  

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:41 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Turbo Planning and p-port planning (L= ong)

In a message dated 3/26/2010 6:42:36 PM Pacific Standard Time, rv-4mike@cox.net writes:
George,
 
Hoping that they produce something that not only= works, but is within financial reach. The history to date of FWF packages= (including the last iteration of Powersport) include lots of cases of pri= cing that is simply out of reach. I like the concept of the rotary or woul= dn=E2=80=99t be flying one, but given the choice between being a beta test= er for somebody's brand new FWF auto conversion versus buying a brand new= Lyc from Vans for the same or less money, I'd choose the Lyc.
 
Mike Wills
Mike and group, A little history.
There is something that needs to be said. There are really two distin= ct "Powersports." The original was Everett Hatch, Steve Beckham, and their= excellent machinist Francis. These guys developed some truly spectacul= ar equipment. The "Superlite" engine was developed for NASA and was so= far removed from the original Mazda as to be unrecognizable. They develop= ed a spur gear planetary custom designed for the task, and a great pendulo= us damper that worked so well that the engine could be idled at 1000 RPM= without the shakes. BTW This should put to rest the total BS that p-port= engines won't idle! This was a system that made over 200 HP and weighed= 164 pounds FWF. After building this machine they took stock and realized= that they would have to sell the package for around $25,000. (In the 90s)= They were honest and figured they would have a hard sell at that cost. Th= ey developed a package that they called the "Iron Eagle" which was basicly= a standard Mazda modified to live in aircraft use. They used an= aircraft leanable mechanical fuel injection and the simplest ignitio= n that was dead reliable. This package used the internal ring gear PSRU de= signed to be simpler and cheaper than the custom planetary. This package= was ready to sell and they had set an intended price of $14,000. I think= they would have had trouble making them fast enough at that price. This= information is all in back issues of Sport Aviation. Tragically Everett= was killed in an aerobatics crash at that time. Steve and Everett had bee= n partners in business for over 20 years, including a long time before Pow= ersport and Steve was so hurt by the loss of his friend that he could not= continue.
 Steve sold the Powersport business to Ratek Machine in Wisconsi= n. This is the "current" Powersport. They had grand ideas that they would= change the package and make it their own. They designed their own EMS whi= ch took a long time and of course adds a great deal to the development cos= t of the package. There were some modifications to the PSRU done as a mast= ers thesis by Steve Weinzerl. This is basic information that is on their= web site. Every change costs money and the final price they put on the sy= stem really takes it out of the low price zone. It was their right to make= the changes they wanted to after they bought the company but, and underst= and that this is my personal opinion, I think that they shot themselves in= the foot. If they had sold the original package while developing the upda= tes concurrently I believe they really would have had something. People re= ally don't understand how much work goes into developing a market-ready pr= oduct. Ratek has suffered the ills of the current economy as much as anyon= e. I don't know if they are currently willing to produce or sell the packa= ge. I am truly saddened by this because I have seen the original stuff and= it was a flyable package. I am a mechanical engineer myself and I've neve= r seen a more obvious example of deviating from the K. I. S. S. principle.= We need a flight-ready engine and PSRU that is way below the price of a= standard aircraft engine if we want the thing to sell. Tracy is the only= one so far to keep the price down and his stuff is probably in 3/4 of the= rotary engines flying. We need to get back to the basics.
Bill Jepson
 ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BE_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com Content-ID: <697A7F2F1CC54E34ACF4390555A28C92@willsPC> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: image/gif; name="Emoticon1.gif" R0lGODlhEwATALMPAPXv3v3pTvDHOei2K9u4a9qoLunPkLGLMdOZKfvbQMeyl5p4J+7JbrebXoAy GAAAACH5BAEAAA8ALAAAAAATABMAAASu8EkJDBNjMAOmf5UgJEGQJBj3AVfpuslAdBRDvu8p04YQ CIuFrzQIDgQFA2i4AAAWruYTgwiVFopnNCsUICy3hUMBvY67hcYwIHaU2Q43ZnAYuIDCUixYmC8G NzgmJyIZBQcXgYMnKIUDCA09jA4FgCcFCA4ZdFlHl5SbmQiGBx0GR0iZcXEIo5wUBH1ImK2tGQcN NCCxm70Dh7krBq2VvwgHB1kfExUNBwu4yh4RADs= ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BE_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com-- ----------MB_8CC9C06917D0CDD_E80_192BD_webmail-d043.sysops.aol.com--