X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from server3.dns-principal-2.com ([66.7.198.72] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.2.12) with ESMTPS id 3532910 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 10:52:04 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.7.198.72; envelope-from=gonza@gimenez.cl Received: from pc-43-161-45-190.cm.vtr.net ([190.45.161.43] helo=GonzaDesktop) by server3.dns-principal-2.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LgKLg-0008BJ-2H for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 12:51:28 -0200 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Gonzalo_A._Gim=E9nez_Celis?= To: Subject: New in the group. Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:51:25 -0300 Message-ID: <001b01c99ffd$5c140d10$143c2730$@cl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C99FE4.36C6D510" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: Acmf/Vq90jcUxJvHSNiVRWeMLitUPA== Content-Language: es-cl X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - server3.dns-principal-2.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lancaironline.net X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - gimenez.cl X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: This is a multipart message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C99FE4.36C6D510 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Group, my name is Gonzalo, I=92m from Chile, building a Cozy MK IV = and new in this group. =20 As you can imagine. Although I have a couple of years left of building, = I=92m moving ahead looking for engine options. Of all the alternatives I=92ve founded in the web, always I come back to the same two options: the = XP-360 and the Rotary. =20 The XP-360 represent, I think, the =93traditional approach=94, while the = Rotary is like the new era. I=92ve been reading a lot, and I think I can resume = all my reading in one statement: the users of traditional general aviation engines (Lyc type) says that if I go with the rotary, I=92ll expend more = time trying to make it working than actually flying, so, after a while, = I=92ll become so tired that I=92ll move to the Lyc type anyway, because the = Rotary is less reliable. =20 I=92ve meet Bulent Aliev, a very nice guy who showed me his aircraft = (very, very nice) and he had a Rotary, and after 20 hour he moved to a XP-360. = He told me that there are too much electronics involved with the Wankel. He told me that If I want to fly, use the Lyc. =20 On the other side, Bulent told me that the factory of the XP-360 is = broke, so, the warranty is no longer valid. (supposed to be 3 years) =20 One very important issue I think is the maintenance and replacement = parts. Aviation engines are SO expensive, while I think that the Rotary might = be cheaper. =20 Also, I would like to have some information about some issues that the = Lyc. says are the weak points of the Wankel, like high operating RPM, difficulties for cooling, too much electronics, and others=85 =20 At the end, to be honest I like very much the Rotary idea, so I=92m = asking you for opinion and experience, since I think that almost all the people who = say that the Rotary doesn=92t work actually has no experience with it. =20 Thanks a lot for your time. =20 Gonzalo Santiago - Chile =20 ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C99FE4.36C6D510 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Group, my name is Gonzalo, = I’m from Chile, building a Cozy MK IV and new in this = group.

As you can imagine. Although I = have a couple of years left of building, I’m moving ahead looking for = engine options. Of all the alternatives I’ve founded in the web, always I = come back to the same two options: the XP-360 and the = Rotary.

The XP-360 represent, I think, = the “traditional approach”, while the Rotary is like the new = era. I’ve been reading a lot, and I think I can resume all my reading = in one statement: the users of traditional general aviation engines (Lyc type) = says that if I go with the rotary, I’ll expend more time trying to make = it working than actually flying, so, after a while, I’ll become so = tired that I’ll move to the Lyc type anyway, because the Rotary is less reliable.

I’ve meet Bulent Aliev, a = very nice guy who showed me his aircraft (very, very nice) and he had a Rotary, = and after 20 hour he moved to a XP-360. He told me that there are too much = electronics involved with the Wankel. He told me that If I want to fly, use the = Lyc.

On the other side, Bulent told = me that the factory of the XP-360 is broke, so, the warranty is no longer valid. = (supposed to be 3 years)

One very important issue I think = is the maintenance and replacement parts. Aviation engines are SO expensive, = while I think that the Rotary might be cheaper.

Also, I would like to have some = information about some issues that the Lyc. says are the weak points of the Wankel, = like high operating RPM, difficulties for cooling, too much electronics, and others…

At the end, to be honest I like = very much the Rotary idea, so I’m asking you for opinion and experience, = since I think that almost all the people who say that the Rotary doesn’t = work actually has no experience with it.

Thanks a lot for your = time.

Gonzalo

Santiago - = Chile

------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C99FE4.36C6D510--