Thank you for taking the time to reply. So far, we have had only one (1!) builder who - - for no given reasons - - asked to be "counted out" as far as the Mac 72 engine revival was concerned. Otherwise, the interest shown has been almost overwhelming; we have even received notes-of-inquiry from folks who have heard of our posting but are they themselves not yet even on the KRnet!
We agree with your comments: engine concerns seem to be the paramount glitch in home building experimental flying machines. We also agree with your concept of "stackable" components. We have done quite a bit of research on the rotary [not 'radial'] Wankel-type engines. The stacking protocol is already being used with the Wankels, and we have seen several such engines that were built-up using three (3) rotors, quite successfully. We have heard of more units being 'stacked' but there seem to be problems. [A fairly good number of (very!) used rotary engines seem to be available in automotive junk/salvage yards, the engines having come from Mazda automobiles and Suzuki motorcycles.] Again, thanks for your reply. Weatherbie ORL/MCO -----Original Message----- From: Charles Smiith <cwssyst...@centurylink.net> To: krnet <kr...@mylist.net> Sent: Sun, Jun 12, 2011 11:39 am Subject: KR> poll on revival of McCulloch 4318 engines . Count me in. My main interest in in developing affordable aircraft and at the ore of that interest is an affordable reliable power plant, the vast roadblock o cheap everyman?s flying now. One of my dreams is a lightweight ?stackable? adial using existing auto parts. harles Smith 50-547-2045 ______________________________________ earch the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp o UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net lease see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
