I just read the auto conversion article in the July issue of Kitplanes.
At first I was pleased to see this mag taking an interest in
the advantages of auto conversions vs. Lycosauruses, something that most
on this newsletter have been aware of for years.

But the article only featured aircraft with auto conversions that had at
least 150 hours on them. By setting the bar this low, Kitplanes
has insured that the true potential of these engines, especially the
rotary, would not be showcased and therefore not be a threat to what I
refer to as "the establishment." The highest time engine featured was Ed
Anderson's (very nice) rotary-powered RV6-A at 260 hours.

With all due respect to Ed and others whose respective conversions
appear promising and well-designed, this article does nothing to inform
those new to the concept of alternative powerplants of the true
potential of these conversions. Where was the mention of Tracy Crook's
conversion? What about Jim Mayfield's 2500 hours in a rotary-powered
gyrocopter? Or Ron Gowan's Long EZ? These are relatively high-time and
proven conversions. These installations do far more to showcase the
potential of alternate engines than low-time conversions do.

But newbies reading Kitplanes latest article could not be blamed for
coming to the conclusion that a 500-hr TBO for a conversion would be a
pipe dream and not even in the same ball park as a 2000-hr TBO Lycoming
or Continental. It almost seems that this is exactly what Kitplanes
wants to happen. I hope I'm wrong, but just in case I'm not I think it's
time to send Kitplanes a friendly letter or ten.

Brett Campbell.

It is also a bad idea for a magazine to lump the rotary in with automotive
piston engines. The two are worlds apart as far as continuous high
power duty is concerned.

Paul Lamar

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2005 All world wide rights reserved.