X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from nlpi015.prodigy.net ([207.115.36.44] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.11) with ESMTP id 2220481 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 13:25:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.115.36.44; envelope-from=Panzera@Experimental-Aviation.com X-ORBL: [69.229.119.233] Received: from CDPATXP1700 (ppp-69-229-119-233.dsl.frsn02.pacbell.net [69.229.119.233]) by nlpi015.prodigy.net (8.13.8 out.dk.spool/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6UHNtDv030214 for ; Mon, 30 Jul 2007 12:23:55 -0500 From: "Patrick Panzera" To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: FW: [FlyRotary] Gear mesh area Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 10:24:35 -0700 Message-ID: <01a201c7d2ce$806de490$3601a8c0@cd.constructiondesigns.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C7D293.D40F0C90" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Thread-Index: AcfR+MAyuuRNJfd1QeiO0T5LjxEPIQAzIrbAAAJE24A= This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C7D293.D40F0C90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Caution; trying to claim 100% right on either end of the spectrum can be equally wrong. Thank you. Bud is a very opinionated individual with (for the most part) the experience to back his opinions and it was extremely difficult to edit his article in our magazine as his article was full of highly opinionated claims as fact. Several statements I just took out, others I toned down. The thing is he has a successful design that brings a lot to the table. Here's what I wrote in my editorial: If it weren't for the diversity of ideas and opinions, we'd all be driving the same car and flying the same plane. Such is the case with automobile engine conversions for experimental aircraft. Direct drive, belted, chain or geared PSRU; pistons or rotors; two or four-stroke; water-cooled or air-cooled; inline, vee or horizontally-opposed; pushrod or overhead-cam; carburetor or fuel injection are all valid choices and no single one is substantially more superior than another for every application. That being said, our cover story features plenty of opinions that are expressed as fact and are not necessarily right or wrong and should be viewed as a well-qualified opinion, based on actual successful experience, but an opinion none-the-less. Pat Editor@ContactMagazine.com ------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C7D293.D40F0C90 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

Caution; trying to claim 100% right on either end of the = spectrum can be equally wrong.<= /p>

 

Thank you.

Bud is a very opinionated individual with = (for the most part) the experience to back his opinions and it was extremely = difficult to edit his article in our magazine as his article was full of highly opinionated claims as fact. Several statements I just took out, others I = toned down. The thing is he has a successful design that brings a lot to the = table.

Here’s what I wrote in my = editorial:

If it weren't for the diversity = of ideas and opinions, we’d all be driving the same car and flying the same = plane. Such is the case with automobile engine conversions for experimental = aircraft. Direct drive, belted, chain or geared PSRU; pistons or rotors; two or four-stroke; water-cooled or air-cooled; inline, vee or = horizontally-opposed; pushrod or overhead-cam; carburetor or fuel injection are all valid = choices and no single one is substantially more superior than another for every application. That being said, our cover story features plenty of = opinions that are expressed as fact and are not necessarily right or wrong and should = be viewed as a well-qualified opinion, based on actual successful = experience, but an opinion none-the-less.

 

Pat

Editor@ContactMagazine.com=

 

------=_NextPart_000_01A3_01C7D293.D40F0C90--