Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 20:40:45 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-2790444@logan.com>
From: Dale Rogers <rogersda@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Fw: [canard-engines] Auto engines in aircrafts...
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi All,

   I know it's an "ad hominum" arguement, but two things 
stuck out big time:

> From: "William Epperson" <bill_eppy@yahoo.com>
> To: <canard-engines@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 6:37 AM
> Subject: [canard-engines] Auto engines in aircrafts...

   I'm immediately suspicious of the qualifications of 
someone who thinks that the plural of "aircraft" is 
"aircrafts".

> > ...  Say you want to replace
> > a I0-360 motor with a auto conversion.  You'd need to
> > make 210HP at 5500RPM with a 2:1 converter and 15%
> > PSRU loss to achieve the replacement output of the
> > I0-360 at 160HP.  If you are running an auto engine at
> > 5500RPM, your fuel economy is fairly high for this
> > size motor.

   I'm even more suspicious of technical analysis from 
someone who refers to an engine as a "motor".

   He goes on to extoll the virtues of the corvair engine, 
over the complexities - as he sees them - of a liquid-
cooled engine.  That's a pretty simplistic view, based 
apparently on the comparison with the Subaru engine, which 
- like the Corvair - has a camshaft and valve train.  

   Looking at the bigger picture is what drew my interest 
to the rotary.  The simplicity of the total system, 
including pilot workload, is hard to beat.

Just my $.02,
Dale R.