>> ...Again, I'd ask you to do this test before hand so you know the
>> results. My wife works for a lawer and it's been said, don't
>> ask a question you don't already know the answer to [in court]
>> why do you think this is? No-one wants to get thrown
>> off balance by an answer they weren't expecting.
>>
>> Don't do a live demonstration, to which you don't know
>> the absolute answers to. You'll just end up doing more harm
>> than good.
>>
>> Don't miss the forest for the trees.
>>
>> Jarrett
>
>
> Jarrett is correct here Keith.
>
> Think about who you are trying to convince- these are mostly ignorant,
> short sighted people who have convinced themselves already that rebuilt
> air-cooled engines are the only worthwhile and affordable alternatives
> in an airplane- it is what they have seen and heard, over and over.
> IMHO, who cares what they choose to believe.  They have already prove
> themselves incapable of independent thought and averse to true religious
> principles ;-) ?   I think the point we should strive to make out is
> that Rotary engines are far better aircraft designs than automotive.
> Let the comparative numbers do the talking.
>
> My concern is that your demo would prove only two things to them, things
> they already believe- that air cooling is safer, and rotary engines are
> noisy.  The water demo might raise an eyebrow with the egg heads, but
> not with the lycosaurs.  A display showing destroyed Lyco heads, broken
> valves, thrown rods, cracked cylinders might have more of an effect, if
> placed alongside a disassembled 5000-hour rotary engine, showing little
> wear.
>
> IMHO, only one factor will impress this public- that Rotaries are safer
> AND cheaper (to install, maintain, and operate) than current Lyco
> air-cooled rebuilds and clones.  Id guess it's nearly impossible to
> prove the safety factor, due to an incomplete database (that they'd
> refuse to consider anyway, since most are convinced that Lycos never
> break :-[ or wear out).  The engineer-pilots should see the inherent
> advantages that a Rotary provides, with significantly fewer failure
> points and solid design of parts.  The public mostly  has incorrect
> ideas concerning the weight, output, fuel economy, and system/part
> availability advantages from the Rotary camp- that is a teaching
> challenge, nothing more.
>
> I believe placing a bunch of outperforming planes under their eyes will
> convert more potential builders than anything else will.  An affordable
> and prove bolt on FWF kit (or even printed plans using commercial parts)
> for the Vans planes would help too :-) :-) :-)   (hint, PL and TC).
>
> Mike Parker

I give up.  You win.  I'm not even going to try to explain this YET AGAIN.

I've been involved in marketing since 1974.  I was in aerospace, then in
computers, and in both we did the same kind of thing I'm talking about
on a nearly routine basis to get customers' attention.  We did it again
over the last several years with the Unimog.  I'm a journalist, and know
what attracts the press and how they cover it.

I'm tired of the backbiting and all of the experts here who tell me that
the same kind of thing that I've done a dozen times can't possibly work,
so you win.  I'm not going to bother.  No demo.  I will simply sit here,
spend my money time elsewhere, and let people continue to think that the
Wankel is a flop.  As long as I've got my own engines, who cares what
anyone else thinks?

Winning races to prove anything is just a stunt, what we call a "dancing
bear" -- that is, people don't care how well he dances, they're amazed
that he dances at all, and nobody is going to rush out and buy a bear.

They won't see the Wankel as any more viable than they do now, any more
than we think that it's viable to build our own spacecraft just because
Rutan did it.  They will assume that it was a lot of extra engineering
that did it, DESPITE the design, not because of it.

Speaking of Rutan, my first homebuilt was a VariViggen, which was
originally designed in the early 1970s as all wooden plane.  Rutan then
discovered cost-effective composite construction, and discovered that
nobody trusted styrofoam airplanes.  So he built a canard, took it to
Oshkosh, and had a few thousand people WALK ON IT to prove its durability.

That didn't mean that he intended people to walk on the Viggen -- he was
showing people something that the had never seen, which proved that his
new structure wasn't as fragile as people thought.  He had no idea how
long it would last, but he intended to find out and then tell people how
long it had lasted compared to what a wooden structure would have done.

The end result was a lot of great press and a surge of sales of plans
for his all-composite canard design, which he dubbed a "VariEze."

He didn't enter a race.  He didn't give an endless stream of lectures
about the advantages of composites.  He did something OFF THE WALL and
the history of aviation changed forever.

Anyway, enough.  Like I said, I give up.

Subject closed.

Keith

Don't give up. I'm sure everyone here is trying to help.
A few email exchanges to hone your idea is better than
scrapping a few engines to hone your idea.

But, to use your analogy, maybe running an engine without
coolant is a "dancing bear"?

-Jeff



The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.