Archie wrote:

$4,000 is still quite a lot of money - does this replace anything?
i.e. can I balance at least part of this off against something that
I (now) won't have to buy?  Or is this the std price + $4K?

 I have no financial interest in the (actually) Mattituck/Aerosance
system. It is cheap when you consider that at overhaul time, to
overhaul two mags and a carb  will cost half that, and you still have
antiquated parts. Check the spark gap recommendation for your
aircraft, then check the same for your automobile. And, you do not
need an impulse coupling to wind this thing up for initial startup.
How about a conservative fuel burn savings of 10%?
How about easier starting?
How about a visual monitoring system in a small panel?
No primer to guess how much to flood the engine with?
Full redundancy
No playing with fuel mixture.
I have seen the future and it reeks with common sense, not
model T technology.
I had better stop. Beginning to sound like a salesman.
(and may ask for a commission)
Archie

I think you are right Archie. The exhaust valves ought to last longer
without the pilot around screwing up the mixture. Unless of course
something goes wrong goes wrong. It took the auto industry awhile
to get EFI as reliable as it is.

How do they handle the backup electrical system? 


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

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