Miatapower List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Tom Graham" <(email redacted)>


At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the Autorotor
is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position as
the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.

The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring owners
that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The Link
ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.

Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of the
ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
easily tuned out.

Tom
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



The Autorotor does not overrev at 10 PSI, but it does at 12 PSI. Corky
really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived and some
died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner and
after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000 miles
on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running (I honestly did not
know about these miles when I sold it to him!).

I would hardly call it fragile, I ran 7500 RPM at 10 PSI of boost with
this unit, MM has run his unit for quite some time. One final note would
be that I did not have idle problems with my setup and I was very happy
with Tip in response.

Mark


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:

>
> At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
> Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the Autorotor
> is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position as
> the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
> Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
> The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.
>
> The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring owners
> that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The Link
> ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.
>
> Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of the
> ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
> has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
> method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
> easily tuned out.
>
> Tom
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Shiv Pathak" <(email redacted)>


Aren't I the first owner of that particular autorotor? :)

Shiv

----------
>From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
>To: Tom Graham <(email redacted)>
>Cc: "(email redacted)" <(email redacted)>
>Subject: Re: Autorotor
>Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001, 10:27 PM
>

>
>
> The Autorotor does not overrev at 10 PSI, but it does at 12 PSI. Corky
> really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived and some
> died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner and
> after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000 miles
> on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running (I honestly did not
> know about these miles when I sold it to him!).
>
> I would hardly call it fragile, I ran 7500 RPM at 10 PSI of boost with
> this unit, MM has run his unit for quite some time. One final note would
> be that I did not have idle problems with my setup and I was very happy
> with Tip in response.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:
>
>>
>> At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
>> Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the Autorotor
>> is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position as
>> the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
>> Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
>> The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.
>>
>> The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring owners
>> that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The Link
>> ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.
>>
>> Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of the
>> ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
>> has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
>> method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
>> easily tuned out.
>>
>> Tom
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com
>>
>>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


yes, infact you are.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Shiv Pathak wrote:

> Aren't I the first owner of that particular autorotor? :)
>
> Shiv
>
> ----------
> >From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>
> >To: Tom Graham <(email redacted)>
> >Cc: "(email redacted)" <(email redacted)>
> >Subject: Re: Autorotor
> >Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2001, 10:27 PM
> >
>
> >
> >
> > The Autorotor does not overrev at 10 PSI, but it does at 12 PSI. Corky
> > really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived and some
> > died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner and
> > after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000 miles
> > on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running (I honestly did not
> > know about these miles when I sold it to him!).
> >
> > I would hardly call it fragile, I ran 7500 RPM at 10 PSI of boost with
> > this unit, MM has run his unit for quite some time. One final note would
> > be that I did not have idle problems with my setup and I was very happy
> > with Tip in response.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
> >> Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the Autorotor
> >> is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position as
> >> the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
> >> Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
> >> The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.
> >>
> >> The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring owners
> >> that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The Link
> >> ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.
> >>
> >> Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of the
> >> ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
> >> has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
> >> method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
> >> easily tuned out.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com
> >>
> >>
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Mark V. Mellinger" <(email redacted)>


At 12:59 AM 2/11/01 -0800, Shiv Pathak wrote:

>Aren't I the first owner of that particular autorotor? :)
>Shiv
>----------
> >From: Mark Peugeot
> Corky really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived
> and some
> > died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner
> and after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000
> miles on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running

> > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:
> > But while the Autorotor is fragile, the Eaton lasts, Corky said the
> bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
> >> Tom
> >> _________________________________________________________________
Still running! Who did you sell it to Shiv?
Mark M.

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Tom Graham" <(email redacted)>


Hi Mark,

The info about the bearings came about durring an inquiry about why the
higher % of Autorotors were failing in service. I know of only 3 Eatons that
failed. One was obviously owner induced as he put the car up for two weeks
after a W/I dyno run and the rear needle bearing rusted. The other two were
at 105K and 130K and ran out of oil. If the oil had been topped up, they may
still be in service. There may be more I don't know about, but the Eaton is
incredibly robust.

I have no idea of the number of Autorotors sold or the number failed in
service. From monitoring the lists for many years it seems the percentage of
Autorotors that failed in Miata service is dramaticly higher than the Eaton.
I, like you, felt the speed of the Autorotor may have been excessive for the
bearings. I still feel that contributes. Although I sometimes have a poor
memory, I believe Corky thinks the bearing assy. of the Autorotor needs
improving.

I feel the screw design of the Autorotor is the best. I was introduced to
this design in a Hot Rod artical (Whipple) long before I studied the Eaton
design. Opcon has a strangle hold on the patents or the Eaton would probably
be a screw SC.

Am i wrong here? I thought many Autorotors had drivability conserns. It's
nice you didn't. Did you do anything to help drivability?

Tom



----Original Message Follows----



The Autorotor does not overrev at 10 PSI, but it does at 12 PSI. Corky
really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived and some
died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner and
after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000 miles
on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running (I honestly did not
know about these miles when I sold it to him!).

I would hardly call it fragile, I ran 7500 RPM at 10 PSI of boost with
this unit, MM has run his unit for quite some time. One final note would
be that I did not have idle problems with my setup and I was very happy
with Tip in response.

Mark


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:

>
> At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
> Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the
Autorotor
> is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position
as
> the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
> Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the
Eaton.
> The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.
>
> The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring
owners
> that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The
Link
> ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.
>
> Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of
the
> ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
> has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
> method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
> easily tuned out.
>
> Tom
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Corky Sold it to Shiv, Shiv sold it to ? (maybe Dave Zenz), Dave Zenz sold
it to me, I sold it to you... I think there might be one more in the cast
of characters.

Mark


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mark V. Mellinger wrote:

> At 12:59 AM 2/11/01 -0800, Shiv Pathak wrote:
>
> >Aren't I the first owner of that particular autorotor? :)
> >Shiv
> >----------
> > >From: Mark Peugeot
> > Corky really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived
> > and some
> > > died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner
> > and after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000
> > miles on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running
>
> > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:
> > > But while the Autorotor is fragile, the Eaton lasts, Corky said the
> > bearings were not as robust as the Eaton.
> > >> Tom
> > >> _________________________________________________________________
> Still running! Who did you sell it to Shiv?
> Mark M.
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>


> Am i wrong here? I thought many Autorotors had drivability conserns. It's
> nice you didn't. Did you do anything to help drivability?

As for the bearing issue, it would appear that there were good ones and
bad ones... good ones lived forever, bad ones died quickly.

No back to drivability, Yes, they sure did have problems. The first thing
I noticed when I bought the kit was (and no offense to Corky) was the
rather braindead fuel and ignition management scheme. To me running 100+
PSI of fuel pressure was crazy, and using a fuel pressure gauge taped to
my window for tuning was even worse. Sure it would work, much like using a
sledgehammer for putting in finish nails.

So what did I do to improve the Autorotor kit, ALOT. My used autorotor
cost as much as an FM-II system when all was said and done.

I replaced all the BS (J&S, AFPR, Fuel Pump, various plumbing.) with a
Link ECU and 550 cc Injectors. This shortened the Install time
dramatically and also made getting the car running much easier.

I had some initial stupidity problems, but the Autorotor on my '95 miata
ran a 14.2 at LACR (3500') and my FM-II in my '99 has run a best of 14.1
at LACR. Here is the difference... The FM-II is running 15 PSI of boost on
a 14.1 run on street tires and has a trap speed of 99 MPH. The Autorotor
runs a trap speed of 89 MPH, but has low end torque like mad... it also
was only running 10 PSI.

So basically, yes I redesigned the system somewhat and made the first
FM/Autorotor combination, I believe.

Mark

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Corky Bell <(email redacted)>




-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Graham [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 10:08 AM
To: (email redacted)
Cc: (email redacted)
Subject: Re: Autorotor


Biggest lesson learned was to avoid putting the supercharger on the hot side.
Corky



Hi Mark,

The info about the bearings came about durring an inquiry about why the
higher % of Autorotors were failing in service. I know of only 3 Eatons that
failed. One was obviously owner induced as he put the car up for two weeks
after a W/I dyno run and the rear needle bearing rusted. The other two were
at 105K and 130K and ran out of oil. If the oil had been topped up, they may
still be in service. There may be more I don't know about, but the Eaton is
incredibly robust.

I have no idea of the number of Autorotors sold or the number failed in
service. From monitoring the lists for many years it seems the percentage of
Autorotors that failed in Miata service is dramaticly higher than the Eaton.
I, like you, felt the speed of the Autorotor may have been excessive for the
bearings. I still feel that contributes. Although I sometimes have a poor
memory, I believe Corky thinks the bearing assy. of the Autorotor needs
improving.

I feel the screw design of the Autorotor is the best. I was introduced to
this design in a Hot Rod artical (Whipple) long before I studied the Eaton
design. Opcon has a strangle hold on the patents or the Eaton would probably
be a screw SC.

Am i wrong here? I thought many Autorotors had drivability conserns. It's
nice you didn't. Did you do anything to help drivability?

Tom



----Original Message Follows----



The Autorotor does not overrev at 10 PSI, but it does at 12 PSI. Corky
really could find no rhyme or reason why some autorotors lived and some
died. Mine is still running and it is on it's fourth or fifth owner and
after much talking with Corky I was able to document nearly 50,000 miles
on the unit that Mark Mellinger is currently running (I honestly did not
know about these miles when I sold it to him!).

I would hardly call it fragile, I ran 7500 RPM at 10 PSI of boost with
this unit, MM has run his unit for quite some time. One final note would
be that I did not have idle problems with my setup and I was very happy
with Tip in response.

Mark


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Tom Graham wrote:

>
> At one time I speculated the Autorotor spins too fast and over revs. The
> Autorotor and the Sebring are in the same position. But while the
Autorotor
> is fragile, the Eaton lasts, so I dismissed the over the header position
as
> the culprit. This seemed sensible to me with the boost way up in the
> Autorotor systems. Corky said the bearings were not as robust as the
Eaton.
> The Autorotor may well have revised bearings by now.
>
> The air/air IC is at the core of the drivability issue. The Sebring
owners
> that have added air/air ICs have reported diminished drivability. The
Link
> ECU or an IC that adds less intake tract volume is the solution.
>
> Another difference between the Autorotor and Sebring is the position of
the
> ISC. The Autorotor keeps the ISC with the throttle body while the Sebring
> has a cast Dummy Throttle Body that accepts the ISC. I'm not sure which
> method is best. The Sebring is plagued with throttle droop but it can be
> easily tuned out.
>
> Tom
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at explorer.msn.com

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: "Brad Franks" <(email redacted)>


Assuming that what Corky's saying is that the cause of death for the
Autorotors was overheating the bearings to a failure point, couldn't that be
worked around with appropriate heat shielding? I do understand that the OEM
header had a heat shield attached but c'mon, that thing was a piece of crud.
All it did was absorb heat from the headers and radiate it to the
surrounding air. There wasn't a piece of insulation in that thing that was
worth mentioning. If one were to simply lay a piece of insulation material
over the heat shield it would more than likely reduce the amount of heat
radiated on the Autorotor by at least 50%

Jay (Bochinam) on SSCOR is a neighbor of mine and I can attest to his
findings. He sandwiched a small piece of thermal resistant fabric (starter
motor insulation) between the head and SC mounting bracket for both the
front and rear brackets. He also wrapped his header in header wrap. Just by
dong this alone you can now grab onto the SC immediately after a 30 second
full boost run at 8 psi with no discomfort (makes for a rather nice hand
warmer on cold days...). Seems that the mounting brackets were radiating
heat from the head through the SC body. Between this and his WI system
(injects right at the junction of the x-over tube and the SC manifold) the
x-over tube is cool to the touch immediately after a 30 second full boost
run.

Less the WI, I would presume the same benefits could be seen with an
Autorotor. Sandwich a piece of insulation between the head and mounting
brackets and actually place some useful heat shielding on the header and
heat should no longer be an issue. Of course I don't condone the wrapping of
header tubes, but a decently designed heat shield would be just as
effective. Something as simple as lining the OEM heat shield with some
fabric would probably suffice.

Brad


----- Original Message -----
From: "Corky Bell" <(email redacted)>

Biggest lesson learned was to avoid putting the supercharger on the hot
side.
Corky

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Karl F Greb <(email redacted)>


Mark,
I think Clint Host beat you to having the first Link/Autorotor setup.
He ran his for about 18 months on a 1.6 several years ago. Pulled 192
rwhp at 12.5 psi before his original blower died due to overspin. He set
up my install the same way on my 1.8L around 3/99. Before the thrust
bearing in my motor went I was getting 188 rwhp at 10 psi. And I think
Shiv beat everybody by running a TEC-II with his a year or so before
Clint's install (is that right Shiv?).
3rd owner of my .76L autorotor (Cardell, Beau, then me), 75k+ total
miles on the unit. Still running strong. I'm going to retire it this
month hopefully for the .89L unit in my garage now that my engine problem
is fixed. .89L is still undersized for the application, I believe, but
it's the best direct fit replacement.
On another note, Opcon has some improved seals and bearings available
now. Don't know if my .89L (ordered this time last year) has them or not.

Regards,
Karl Greb


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mark Peugeot wrote:

>
> > Am i wrong here? I thought many Autorotors had drivability conserns. It's
> > nice you didn't. Did you do anything to help drivability?
>
> As for the bearing issue, it would appear that there were good ones and
> bad ones... good ones lived forever, bad ones died quickly.
>
> No back to drivability, Yes, they sure did have problems. The first thing
> I noticed when I bought the kit was (and no offense to Corky) was the
> rather braindead fuel and ignition management scheme. To me running 100+
> PSI of fuel pressure was crazy, and using a fuel pressure gauge taped to
> my window for tuning was even worse. Sure it would work, much like using a
> sledgehammer for putting in finish nails.
>
> So what did I do to improve the Autorotor kit, ALOT. My used autorotor
> cost as much as an FM-II system when all was said and done.
>
> I replaced all the BS (J&S, AFPR, Fuel Pump, various plumbing.) with a
> Link ECU and 550 cc Injectors. This shortened the Install time
> dramatically and also made getting the car running much easier.
>
> I had some initial stupidity problems, but the Autorotor on my '95 miata
> ran a 14.2 at LACR (3500') and my FM-II in my '99 has run a best of 14.1
> at LACR. Here is the difference... The FM-II is running 15 PSI of boost on
> a 14.1 run on street tires and has a trap speed of 99 MPH. The Autorotor
> runs a trap speed of 89 MPH, but has low end torque like mad... it also
> was only running 10 PSI.
>
> So basically, yes I redesigned the system somewhat and made the first
> FM/Autorotor combination, I believe.
>
> Mark
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Mark Peugeot <(email redacted)>



Quite possible.

Mark


On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Karl F Greb wrote:

>
> Mark,
> I think Clint Host beat you to having the first Link/Autorotor setup.
> He ran his for about 18 months on a 1.6 several years ago. Pulled 192
> rwhp at 12.5 psi before his original blower died due to overspin. He set
> up my install the same way on my 1.8L around 3/99. Before the thrust
> bearing in my motor went I was getting 188 rwhp at 10 psi. And I think
> Shiv beat everybody by running a TEC-II with his a year or so before
> Clint's install (is that right Shiv?).
> 3rd owner of my .76L autorotor (Cardell, Beau, then me), 75k+ total
> miles on the unit. Still running strong. I'm going to retire it this
> month hopefully for the .89L unit in my garage now that my engine problem
> is fixed. .89L is still undersized for the application, I believe, but
> it's the best direct fit replacement.
> On another note, Opcon has some improved seals and bearings available
> now. Don't know if my .89L (ordered this time last year) has them or not.
>
> Regards,
> Karl Greb
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Mark Peugeot wrote:
>
> >
> > > Am i wrong here? I thought many Autorotors had drivability conserns. It's
> > > nice you didn't. Did you do anything to help drivability?
> >
> > As for the bearing issue, it would appear that there were good ones and
> > bad ones... good ones lived forever, bad ones died quickly.
> >
> > No back to drivability, Yes, they sure did have problems. The first thing
> > I noticed when I bought the kit was (and no offense to Corky) was the
> > rather braindead fuel and ignition management scheme. To me running 100+
> > PSI of fuel pressure was crazy, and using a fuel pressure gauge taped to
> > my window for tuning was even worse. Sure it would work, much like using a
> > sledgehammer for putting in finish nails.
> >
> > So what did I do to improve the Autorotor kit, ALOT. My used autorotor
> > cost as much as an FM-II system when all was said and done.
> >
> > I replaced all the BS (J&S, AFPR, Fuel Pump, various plumbing.) with a
> > Link ECU and 550 cc Injectors. This shortened the Install time
> > dramatically and also made getting the car running much easier.
> >
> > I had some initial stupidity problems, but the Autorotor on my '95 miata
> > ran a 14.2 at LACR (3500') and my FM-II in my '99 has run a best of 14.1
> > at LACR. Here is the difference... The FM-II is running 15 PSI of boost on
> > a 14.1 run on street tires and has a trap speed of 99 MPH. The Autorotor
> > runs a trap speed of 89 MPH, but has low end torque like mad... it also
> > was only running 10 PSI.
> >
> > So basically, yes I redesigned the system somewhat and made the first
> > FM/Autorotor combination, I believe.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted)


When you say "we" ... are you referring to yourself and Corky Bell, by chance?
Is Corky working on a 'secret project' involving the Autorotor?

Jim in Tucson

In a message dated 2/12/01 10:28:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
(email redacted) writes:


> We may yet revisit the Autorotor, but properly mounted on the cool side.
>
> Bill Cardell
>
>

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Bill Cardell <(email redacted)>

Yes, Corky and I. Mostly Corky. No secrets, just very early in the
gestation.


Bill Cardell
(email redacted)
Flyin' Miata
flyinmiata.com <flyinmiata.com/>
200mphmiata.net <200mphmiata.net/>
1-800-FLY-MX5S (orders only)
1-970-242-3800 (tech)


-----Original Message-----
From: (email redacted) [mailto:(email redacted)]
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 10:25 PM
To: (email redacted); (email redacted)
Subject: Re: Autorotor



When you say "we" ... are you referring to yourself and Corky Bell, by
chance?
Is Corky working on a 'secret project' involving the Autorotor?

Jim in Tucson

In a message dated 2/12/01 10:28:21 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
(email redacted) writes:




We may yet revisit the Autorotor, but properly mounted on the cool side.

Bill Cardell