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.

I know of some people who fly thousands of hours and NEVER have an engine
problem but I know of others who fly the same type engine/installation
and have multiple engine failures.   It is the little things that get
you, it seems.

I've followed engine development starting with Corvair & VWs and have
been amazed at what has been predicted to occur and what has actually
occurred.  I've seen experienced organizations and people, who know what
they are doing, fall on their faces.  Remember the Continental Tiara?

Engine development probably feels like a huge sewer in which to throw
money and time.  If you fly an installation 100 hours without a problem,
then people want 1,000.  If you go 2,000 hrs. then people want to see
what happens to a fleet of engines with 2000 hours.  As long as power
plants have to be 99 & 44/100% reliable, there will be nay sayers to auto
engines.

They say it now even with aircraft engines every time they buy a twin.

I think the service you auto engine developers perform is invaluable to
the flying community but it is something that will have no "over night "
effect.  Tracy's near 1000 hours is a significant accomplishment and one
to be applauded, but I am sorry to say it probably will not cause a big
change in pilot attitude.

I plan to publish his findings to help the other auto engine developers
who are doing the "grunt" work for aviation's future.  I further hope it
encourages others to attempt auto engine development.  Only greater
acceptance by builders will increase
the size of the auto engine test fleet.   I feel when "fleet size"
increases more people will view auto engine conversions as a viable
alternative.

I do think Continental & Lycoming will be in the Smithsonian as auto
engines take it all away from them.  The only question is "when?"

Thanks for what you do for aviation's future,

Terry
*******

Our Aircraft Rotary Engine  Newsletter is an attempt to address
those installation and maintenance issues.

There are huge design differences in the wankel rotary compared to other
auto engines. In my opinion a piston auto engine will never make
it in the continuous power to weight ratio category of an aircraft
engines
because they are not designed for heavy duty use like a real aircraft
engine. If you can accept a 100 to 150 pound weight penalty an
auto piston run at 50% or lower HP levels will work.

The wankel type rotary on the other hand  is not in the same category.
They are appples and oranges and a world apart. One major advantage is
there are no valves to burn. A second major advantage is the
output shaft is almost stright through with none of the high stress
concentrations found in the piston engine crankshaft. A third is
the rotor is cast iron and impossible to melt which is not the case
with an aluminum piston. I could go on and on.

Check my web site for a list of books on the subject.
 
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/   

Paul