Dale,
I am hurting to become an actual  builder, but space is not available at the
time, nor is money.
Plans and Dreams are calling for a turbo-intercooled-peripheral
intake-2rotor or a turbo-intercooled 3-rotor (if it makes sense after
calculations...) in a BD-4 like aircraft - modified BD-4 or using the BD-4
as a template for a slightly bigger version).
Please explain where you think I re- or misdirected!
If you don't like my wit, so be it, can't confirm with everybody.
Some of my statements are asumptions from reading mags, books, techn. papers
over the years, some is experience (or the lack of of it... as in problems
with belts: I have driven 18-wheelers, have been a mechanic on merchant
ships, am flying helicopters since 11 years - piston and turbine, wit plenty
of "belt" experience....)
Maybe I was lucky, but I NEVER had any problems with belts. I had
alternators fail because of regulators failing, diodes burning through, etc.
The car mechanics on here might want to elaborate on the brands of failed
belts and/or the condition of the engine in general, maybe misaligned
pulleys or a wrong tension on the belt did them in.

I signed on here to learn as much a possible about the rotary before I have
a chance to get my hands on one, but there are a lot of things that are
comon to other mechanical areas, where I do have some experience.

You don't like my suggestion on posting at the bottom, well forget it. By
now it is non-issue as some more people on here already decided agaist it.
I can perfectly live with it! It was just a suggestion, as IMHO it works
better the other way, but hey, it was a SUGGESTION not a proposal to make it
law......
Back to posting on top....

Again, you don't like my wit, ignore my posts........

Thomas J.

PS: Rusty, I never caught the plane you built, what are you flying?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Rogers" <rogersda@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:16 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP


> Thomas,
>
>    Are you an actual builder?  Or do you just come here to
> stir the mud?
>
>    I ask because you are employing tactics that I usually
> see reserved for political discussions - to wit, mis- and
> re- direction when challenged.
>
>    You said:
>
> >
> > From: "rijakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
> > Date: 2004/11/08 Mon PM 07:11:35 EST
> > To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> > Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP
> > ...
> >   Somewhere in another post on this newsletter, same thread, someone
said that I am wrong concerning the need for a bigger battery wit a EWP.
> >   Well you don't need a bigger battery unless you would like to keep
your sparetime to engine shutdown the same as without the EWP. You also will
need a bigger alternator...about 4 to 7 amps bigger, according to the
numbers showing up on the list :)
> >
>
>    However, what you had actually written was:
>
> From: "rijakits" <rijakits@cwpanama.net>
> Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: EWP
> Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 23:13:11 -0500
>
> >> ...
> >> Well a bigger battery will need a heavier alternator!
>
> to which I responded.
>
> > Wrong! It isn't the bigger battery that requires a
> larger alternator; it is the total system current
> requirements.
>
>    I stand by my words.
>
> Dale R.
> COZY MkIV #1254
> Ch's 4, 5 and 23 in progress.
>
>
>
> >>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> >>  Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>