Paul,
Put me in the Yes column, but it is a weak "yes".
-- The PICAXE has a lot of promise.  It might provide better efficiency
than we can get via "dumb" mechanical injection or use of carburetors.    If
somebody pursues it, I would eagerly read of their progress, and might even
decide eventually that it is the type of system I want for my plane.
  -- Still, I don't think the PICAXE (or any electronic system) can be
made as bulletproof and reliable as a solid mechanical system.  Even with
redundant electronic components, etc.  On the other hand, the slide throttle
(either the ramp and multiple dribble-tube style or an Ellison-style
twisty-pipe) is going to have issues--we know that, it's just that we don't
know what they are.  How will they perform under other than 1-G flight?
Will fuel leakage be a bigger problem than we now foresee?  etc.  I think
after the bugs are worked out, these mechanical approaches probably have a
better chance of advancing the adoption of rotary engines in experimental
aviation.   As you said, the PICAXE tinkering will appeal to electronics
hobibests/programmers, and provide lots of opportunities to fiddle and
tweak.  But for folks interested in rapidly fitting a rotary to their
airplane, the mechanical approaches will have more appeal.  Bolt this in,
connect the linkages, tighten the fuel hose clamps--done.

I'm a lurker with only a "future" dog in the fight, so I really don't
deserve a vote at all.  But,  if it won't slow progress on the mechanical
approach, then I'd like to see someone run with the PICAXE  (umm, not
literally.  Mom says it's not safe) .  And, if we all end up running p-port
engines fed by carburetors, it would still be a step forward for general
aviation.

Mark Waldron

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