Hi and thanks for your letter. Rotary engines have not had the greatest

appeal in the past and some of their troubles even though solved still stick
with the

product. Most of the problems have been with the prop drives and

extremely high fuel consumption. We would print more rotary articles if
others asked for them

or if some one submitted one, so far there doesn't seem to be much

interest. Norm

These are myths that are just not true Norm. Tens of thousands of hours

have been accumulated

by Ford C6 automatic transmission planetary gear sets assembled into

PSRU's by

several manufacturers. Tracy Crook's Rotary Aviation PSRU's being the best

examples so far.

It is true that Ross had some quality control problems towards the end of
their business life.

The current rotary engine fuel consumption runs about .47 BSFC while

aircraft

engine fuel consumption runs about .43 to .45. Worst case is 9% not as

good.

At best it is only 4% worse. Hardly what I would call  "extremely high

fuel consumption".

To put that in terms of gallons per hour the air cooled aircraft engine

generating

150 HP at cruise would be burning 10.75 (.43 BSFC) to 11.25 (.45 BSFC)

gallons per hour.

The rotary at 150 HP cruise at .47 BSFC would be burning 11.75 gallons per

hour.

Hardly what I would call "extremely high fuel consumption".
One might even consider the term "extremely high fuel consumption"

slander.

The latest RX8 engine is better than that.

I can only conclude you are highly misinformed.

Perhaps some of our 1500 world wide subscribers will send you email

requesting

more articles on rotary engines.

Paul Lamar

Robin Ream wrote:

    Well said Paul.  --  The REAL numbers are hard to argue with :-)   --
And so is Tracy Crook's trophy :-)

Robin

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.