From: "William Jepson" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.213.54; envelope-from=wrjjrs@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <list-8711358@logan.com>
References: <list-8711358@logan.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 13:28:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN=mtae5oK=hn-vuaqQFtAkBWNAPpW6e6FSiVB_q2SnJ5rEB5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] What a load!!
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c1229d8c8cffe0534b6093b

--94eb2c1229d8c8cffe0534b6093b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Yes Pat this guy is a menace. The idea the he would start a engine
CONVERSION when he didn't know much about engines is quite Polyanna. My
suggestion is that he would have equally botched a O-200 rebuild. What
makes an aircraft engine? Attention to details, all of them. If you look at
another article in the same issue, the top end overhaul of an IO-540? and
look at the money  spent there it would likely have exceeded the money
spent on the Q2!
 One thing to remember about this article is that there has never been a 1
rotor Mazda! The entire engine was a chop job to begin with. I am a rotary
engine supporter and people need to be reminded that the single rotor
engine STARTED by cutting the main part of the engine, (the excentric
shaft), into two parts! Knowledgeable engine builders have failed in making
this conversion, and using it to power an airplane requires you *know what
you are doing.* While a single rotor engine has been done, and done well by
some, it is still a big job and shouldn't be thought of a a casual effort.
Put this in perspective. Take the engine from your old Mustang 5 liter. Now
cut it in half. Would you expect that engine would run without
re-balancing? With no oil pressure? Would you use it to power your
airplane? If done correctly it would work just fine, but every detail would
need to be gone over with the thought that you planned to put this engine
in a plane.

Bill jepson

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Panzera <
flyrotary@lancaironline.net> wrote:

> This single article does more to damage the reputation of the rotary
> engine, as well as auto conversions in general, than all the positive
> articles combined have done to promote the use.
>
>
> http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/31_9/builder_spotlight/building_rotary_engine_21069-1.html
>
>
> ...when in reality, it proves the incompetence of the builder.
>
> Pat
>

--94eb2c1229d8c8cffe0534b6093b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Yes Pat this guy is a menace. The idea the he would start =
a engine CONVERSION when he didn&#39;t know much about engines is quite Pol=
yanna. My suggestion is that he would have equally botched a O-200 rebuild.=
 What makes an aircraft engine? Attention to details, all of them. If you l=
ook at another article in the same issue, the top end overhaul of an IO-540=
? and look at the money =C2=A0spent there it would likely have exceeded the=
 money spent on the Q2!=C2=A0<div>=C2=A0One thing to remember about this ar=
ticle is that there has never been a 1 rotor Mazda! The entire engine was a=
 chop job to begin with. I am a rotary engine supporter and people need to =
be reminded that the single rotor engine STARTED by cutting the main part o=
f the engine, (the excentric shaft), into two parts! Knowledgeable engine b=
uilders have failed in making this conversion, and using it to power an air=
plane requires you <u>know what you are doing.</u>=C2=A0While a single roto=
r engine has been done, and done well by some, it is still a big job and sh=
ouldn&#39;t be thought of a a casual effort. Put this in perspective. Take =
the engine from your old Mustang 5 liter. Now cut it in half. Would you exp=
ect that engine would run without re-balancing? With no oil pressure? Would=
 you use it to power your airplane? If done correctly it would work just fi=
ne, but every detail would need to be gone over with the thought that you p=
lanned to put this engine in a plane.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>Bill j=
epson</div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Patrick Panzera <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a h=
ref=3D"mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net" target=3D"_blank">flyrotary@lanc=
aironline.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" st=
yle=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div =
dir=3D"ltr">This single article does more to damage the reputation of the r=
otary engine, as well as auto conversions in general, than all the positive=
 articles combined have done to promote the use.=C2=A0<br><br><a href=3D"ht=
tp://www.kitplanes.com/issues/31_9/builder_spotlight/building_rotary_engine=
_21069-1.html" target=3D"_blank">http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/31_9/build=
er_spotlight/building_rotary_engine_21069-1.html</a><br><div><br></div><div=
><br></div><div>...when in reality, it proves the incompetence of the build=
er.</div><div><br></div><div>Pat</div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--94eb2c1229d8c8cffe0534b6093b--