Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.39; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
Message-ID: <20071026181301.L7EZ7.110245.root@fed1wml01.mgt.cox.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:13:01 -0400
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Copperstate Fly-in report (interim)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sensitivity: Normal

Hi All,

Has anyone heard from Al Gietzen since yesterday morning?  While many of you have been having fun at Shady Bend, I've been sitting here at the Copperstate Fly-in (the only place I could afford to
travel to this year) listening to ...
.
.
.
P.L.
.
.
discoursing on aspects of using the rotary engine in an aviation application.  I think this is the first time I've ever heard him.  Interesting ...

I was a bit surprised, given the level of friction that I'd heard between P.L. and certain folks here, that he spoke reasonably well of Tracy C. - especially of the RWS Re-drive - until he got to engine control computers.  He recommended staying with the Mazda controls and coils.

Was he accurate, when he stated that everyone who has used the EC2 has had problems?  He made that claim in the context of the "35 little wires" that have to be hooked up; so understandably, there is a lot of opportunity do it wrong.  But has there been NO one who got it right on the first hook up?  I suspect that this is only one of several
bits of mis-information that was passed out.

Much of the rest of his - admittedly, improptu - presentation echoed recent discussions here on hoses and constant force clams, and speaking disparagingly of the LS-1 ignition coils. 

Those of you who are on both lists, have there been similar discussions on P.L.'s list?

Al, if you are there, and your house hasn't burned down, and your family is okay, and you can get to your airplane tomorrow morning ... could you make it out here for tomorrow's scheduled session?  Pretty please?  It might save some folks from walking away with some serious misconceptions about using the rotary in aviation.

As an aside, there is a company called Rotary Aircraft Engines with a display here (NOT a running engine - maybe just an empty shell.)  Allegedly, 130 pounds (all aluminum) 160 horsepower.  Two plugs per rotor, but no "leading / trailing" - two "peanut" plugs, side-by-side.  They said it was an outgrowth of a rotary for marine applications.  Maybe
that's why the display model impressed me as manifestly UNsuitable for an airplane.  Each rotor had its own throttle body injection (looked to be about 32mm) on a relatively short tube (maybe 7" to port end in the housing liner - and ONLY ONE INJECTOR!  They obviously hadn't read the in-depth analysis of Paul Connor's crash.

Best Regards,
Dale R.