X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com ([24.25.9.102] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.9) with ESMTP id 1123356 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:35:27 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=24.25.9.102; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Received: from edward2 (cpe-024-074-111-186.carolina.res.rr.com [24.74.111.186]) by ms-smtp-03.southeast.rr.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4MFYdIs000647 for ; Mon, 22 May 2006 11:34:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <001301c67db5$55590dd0$2402a8c0@edward2> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 11:35:19 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0010_01C67D93.CDF667A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C67D93.CDF667A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MessageOk, Al. I did misread it. No question that the rotary's did = burn more fuel than the Lycomings, I had interpreted that as burning = more fuel/making more power as they flew faster than the lycoming = powered aircraft during that one phase of the comparison. I didn't zero in on the part of the article indicating that they were = all going the same airspeed when the fuel burn comparison was made.=20 But, it still was not as informative as it could have been, in that = these were unusual "P" port engines - not the normal side ports that = 90% of us are flying. If both rotary engines had been the normal side = port, I think the comparison would have been more interesting (and = perhaps more likely to have been closer in both the power and fuel = burn). All of that said, I still think the comparison showed the rotary can = indeed "stay" with a Lycoming. Perhaps burning a bit more - but as you = pointed out - cheaper fuel. So when the day is done, I think the = argument has been raised to a higher level. Its no longer about whether = a rotary can compete with a Lycoming, it clearly can do that, so the = questions will now focus on the relative difference in costs of = operation, reliability, cost of maintenance, effort in building your = own FWF, etc.=20 Of course, this is all my 0.02 as usual. Ed ----- Original Message -----=20 From: al p wick=20 To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 11:04 AM Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Rationalization was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions = from a potential rotaryphile Ed, you may want to reread the article. They weighed all the planes, = added ballast to the light ones to equal things out, then all flew same = speed, altitude on long cross country. The reported fuel use differences = were real.=20 Only points they didn't consider was the fact that both rotaries were = burning 87 octane instead of 100LL. I don't know the difference in = energy per gallon, but there sure is a difference in $. So if they = compared cost for the trip, rotary would win. It would have been nice if the author had compared the operating = expense difference, but in all fairness, pilots tend to think in terms = of GPH. -al wick Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV powered by stock Subaru = 2.5 N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from Portland, Oregon Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel design = info: http://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:16:20 -0400 "Ed Anderson" = writes: Even the Aviation Sport article supports that conclusion, even if = they did dwell on the fuel burn (and Noise {:>),being higher. Well of = course, the fuel consumption was higher - it was producing more power = and beating the lycoming power RV-8.=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C67D93.CDF667A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Ok, Al.  I did misread = it.  No=20 question that the rotary's did burn more fuel than the Lycomings, I = had interpreted that as burning more fuel/making more power as they = flew=20 faster than the lycoming powered aircraft during that one phase of the=20 comparison.
 
I didn't zero in on = the part of the=20 article indicating  that they were all going the same airspeed when = the=20 fuel burn comparison was made. 
 
 But, it still was not as = informative=20 as it could have been, in that these were unusual "P" port engines - not = the=20 normal side ports  that 90% of us are flying.  If both = rotary=20 engines had been the normal side port, I think the comparison would have = been=20 more interesting (and perhaps more likely to have been closer in both = the power=20 and fuel burn).
 
All of that said, I still think = the=20 comparison showed the rotary can indeed "stay" with a Lycoming.  = Perhaps=20 burning a bit more - but as you pointed out  - cheaper fuel.  = So when=20 the day is done, I think the argument has been raised to a higher = level. =20 Its no longer about whether a rotary can compete with a Lycoming, it = clearly can=20 do that, so the questions will now focus on the relative difference in = costs of=20 operation, reliability, cost of maintenance,   effort in = building your=20 own FWF, etc. 
 
 Of course, this is all my = 0.02 as=20 usual.
 
Ed
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 al p = wick
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 = 11:04 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = Rationalization=20 was [FlyRotary] Re: Questions from a potential rotaryphile

Ed, you may want to reread the article. They weighed all the = planes,=20 added ballast to the light ones to equal things out, then all flew = same speed,=20 altitude on long cross country. The reported fuel use = differences were=20 real.
Only points they didn't consider was the fact that both rotaries = were=20 burning 87 octane instead of 100LL. I don't know the difference in = energy per=20 gallon, but there sure is a difference in $. So if they compared cost = for the=20 trip, rotary would win.
It would have been nice if the author had compared the operating = expense=20 difference, but in all fairness, pilots tend to think in terms of = GPH.

-al wick
Artificial intelligence in cockpit, Cozy IV = powered by=20 stock Subaru 2.5
N9032U 200+ hours on engine/airframe from = Portland,=20 Oregon
Prop construct, Subaru install, Risk assessment, Glass panel = design=20 info:
htt= p://www.maddyhome.com/canardpages/pages/alwick/index.html
 
On Mon, 22 May 2006 09:16:20 -0400 "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com&g= t;=20 writes:
 Even the Aviation = Sport article=20 supports that conclusion, even if they did dwell on the fuel = burn (and=20 Noise {:>),being higher.  Well of course, the =  fuel=20 consumption was higher - it was producing more power and beating the = lycoming power=20 RV-8. 
------=_NextPart_000_0010_01C67D93.CDF667A0--