Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.225.28.217; envelope-from=dalemahan@charter.net
Message-ID: <42A7886A.4090609@charter.net>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 19:08:10 -0500
From: Dale Mahan <dalemahan@charter.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: air cooled wankel no impossibility
References: <list-988695@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-988695@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Using rotary engines that are advertised for unmanned air vehicles?  
What would the reliability difference be between those engines and 
engines for manned vehicles?  Is the difference deliberately designed 
into the engine?  Or... is this a "derated" manned vehicle engine?  
Or...maybe the engine company just wants to avoid certification issues 
and expense? But then again, I guess there is nobody actually certifying 
rebuilt Mazda 12As and 13Bs, except the builders that stake their lives 
on them, correct?

Dale


Bob White wrote:

>Looks like the way to go to me.  Put 5 of those 38 hp  units  on  for
>228 hp and so much redundancy that failure would be impossible. :)
>(sorry Al)
>
>Bob W.
>
>
>On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:46:30 -0400
>"jesse farr" <jesse@jessfarr.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>http://www.uavenginesltd.co.uk/index.php?id=393
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>>> Archive:   http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>>>        
>>>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>