Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.101; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com
Message-ID: <000701c76c1c$fc37d4f0$2402a8c0@edward2>
From: "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
References: <list-1935666@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: American Rotary Engine vs. RWS Reduction Drive
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:56:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

You're right, Bob.  But, couldn't see any advantage setting the prop off to 
the right of center line {:>).  Yes, if the available gear box at the time 
(the Ross drive was about it) had had about a 2 -3" off set, I may never 
have discovered all the benefits and joys of "Plugs Up". {:>).

Again, the Powersport gearbox is a nice piece of work, just a bit too heavy 
and pricey for my aircraft and pocket book.

Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob White" <rlwhite@comcast.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: American Rotary Engine vs. RWS Reduction Drive


> There is an offset on the Powersport unit which would lower the
> engine.  I guess in your case Ed, it would move it off to the side a
> little. :)  I would like to have had that feature as I could have left
> the alternator at the stock location.  It wasn't worth twice the money
> though.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:20:26 -0400
> "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> MessageHi David,
>>
>> The bottom line is you can spend considerably more money, gain 20 lbs 
>> right up on the nose (tail in you case, where you probably do not want 
>> it) , not have the cheapness of standard Ford transmission parts to lower 
>> any repair (unlikely) cost  and still not end up with any difference that 
>> the aircraft  will notice. (other than the lighter weight of the RWS 
>> PSRU).
>>
>> Now, I personally believe the Powersport looks very nice and it appears 
>> to be a well engineered piece of gear box.  But, while it will make your 
>> engine installation heavier, it will make your pocket book lighter (but 
>> the one won't offset the other {:>).
>>
>>  From my viewpoint, I can get both an good rebuilt engine AND a RWS PSRU 
>> for less money .  But, this all just my personal opinion.
>>
>> Ed
>>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>>   From: Tracy Crook
>>   To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>>   Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:34 PM
>>   Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: American Rotary Engine vs. RWS Reduction Drive
>>
>>
>>   Hi David,
>>   Didn't recognize the name of that company but after going to the 
>> website I see it is just another name used by Atkins Rotary.  The redrive 
>> is a nice one (same one developed by Powersport) but about 20 pounds 
>> heavier and more than twice the cost of RWS. Last time I checked it was 
>> $6500.00.
>>
>>   Tracy Crook,   RWS
>>     ----- Original Message ----- 
>>     From: David Moyer
>>     To: Rotary motors in aircraft
>>     Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:28 PM
>>     Subject: [FlyRotary] American Rotary Engine vs. RWS Reduction Drive
>>
>>
>>     Any comments why I would want to pay double for American Rotary 
>> Engine's over RWS for a 13B turbo? This is going to be an installation 
>> that I am putting into my Cozy MK-IV playing off what John Slade has done 
>> in his Cozy.
>>
>>     David Moyer
>>     Cozy Mark-IV My garage is getting tight, close to needing to put it 
>> in a hanger. Planning panel and engine setup.
>
>
> -- 
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
> First Flight:  11/23/2006 7:50AM - 3.8 Hours Total Time
> Cables for your rotary installation - http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub: 
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html