|
|
Ed Anderson wrote:
Ok, 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. 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).
I think they used the Powersport equipted airplanes in the article because it is a commercial product. Lord knows, we don't want to give all them
homebuilders out there the idea that they can just put their own engine together. Who knows what sort of chicanery that will lead to? Sport Aviation always seems to swallow with distaste the idea that homebuilders are building stuff at home, and not just assembling commercially available products.
It's OK, though. I know this guy who is a long time rotary advocate who, for various reasons, is building a Lycoming equipped RV. I'd bet that we'd be able to convince him and maybe a couple of other rotary folks with Lycoming equipt airplanes on hand to write an article from a different perspective. Not so much to disprove the previous article, but more to expand upon it and provide a few more data points.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |
|
|