----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 12:20
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Contrasting view
point was [FlyRotary] Re: AirVenture Souviner
Hummm, while I am a cast-in-stone rotary type,
I really don't see any point in throwing stones at those alternate
engine types who prefer pistons. Many smaller airframes simply
couldn't use a rotary even if they wanted to.
My view is that us "Alternative Engine"
types all face the same "hostile" outside world and need to stick
together. Certainly we can (and will) debate the relative merits of
each choice, but I certainly feel that somebody that successfully puts a
covair,Subaru, V-6, etc, in an project and safely gets airborne is a
kindred soul.
Now, if the logo has something like an
"X" across a symbol for a certified, expensive and all to prone
to cost $$, aircraft engine, - that - I might could sign on for
{:>). But, since I won't be going to Oshkosh, I guess I don't have
to be concerned about it.
Just my viewpoint on the topic
FWIW
Ed
Hi Ed, et al,
As aviators I agree we are kindred souls. But, believing as
I do that the rotary engine is so far superior to piston engines I could not
endorse a message that promotes both pistons and
rotaries. I understand Pat only wishes to promote automotive
conversions but, for some rotary enthusiasts, the hat design can be an
uncomfortable compromise.
Ernie
Ernie, While I certainly agree (surprise!) with your
opinion about rotary engines having some unbeatable qualities and
characteristics, there is unfortunately not a series of rotary engines that
meets every need. I personally believe that for some applications,
the smaller Corvair and Subaru engines (for example) are about
the best viable alternative engines at the moment. But, that
said, it is certainly up to each individual to show their "passion" as they
see fit. The next thing we will likely see are hats with an "X" across a
rotary - I just personally do not see what either approach will do for the
alternate engine community.
Again, just my personal viewpoint and to each their own
{:>)
Ed