X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 

Terry L Schubert wrote:

Dear Paul,

I think it is quite significant but it's extent is hard to assign.  It is
one data point and a leaves many other questions unanswered. Maintenance,
operating methods, individual engine characteristics, individual
installation methods, etc all play a part in repeatability of engine
performance.

Al Fuller wrote:

Amen to Terry's comments.  I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it
was refreshing to hear someone put into words the thought which bring ME to
auto engines for aircraft.

It continues to amaze me that people will accept that their auto engine
will reliably work over and over and over - and drive it to the airport to
get into a vehicle powered with 1940's technology, which has mandated
failure testing [like magneto checks] EVERY time it's used!

Thanks again, Terry.

Alfonso C. Fuller, Jr.

I think you missed a point or two here Al.

Electronic fuel injection and ignition are one thing.

Engine durability and power to weight ratio are entirely
different issues. It is going to be hard to beat
the current air cooled aircraft engine in these
regards. Don't underestimate them. 

In my  humble opinion the wankel rotary is the only engine 
that has a chance and it is going to take a long time to resolve 
the cooling and installation and failure mode problems.
Probably at least another five years.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org