>JD> Low fuel economy and low torque are
 >JD> the big problems. The low torque wouldn't be a problem in a hybrid
 >JD> auto, where it's driving a generator, but the fuel economy and high
 >JD> cost are still problems.
 > 
 > On the contrary, the Rosen Motors hybrid car claim of 1,000 miles to the
 > tankful I find is a rather superior fuel economy. Would you please, tell
 > me how you come about your low fuel economy conclusion so I can
 > reconcilliate it with what I learned from the above?
My stock ol' VW Jetta will do nearly 600 miles 'per tankful'. That is a 
meaningless measure if I ever heard one; I'll bet that there's a number of 
semi-tractors with huge fuel tanks that can go '1000 miles per tankful'.
You're probably too young to remember the fuel crunches of the '70's and 
early '80's, but let me relate an example. One auto manufacturer (either 
Buick or Olds as I recollect) put an extra-large tank in their car so they 
could brag about 'mileage between fillups'. The car got the typical kinda 
poor mileage of the time, certainly less than 20 MPG, but it would go a long 
way on a tankful.
My comment about low fuel economy (as compared to piston engines) comes from 
observations about turbine engines. I've never seen one yet that claims to do 
better than a recip. Your much-vaunted turbine conversions of a particular 
airplane is a good example. Check the details and you'll almost certainly 
find that the fuel cost per mile is higher for the turbine than for the recip 
that it replaced. There are mitigating circumstances that make it feasable to 
do such a transplant; it's done to DC-3s, too, you know. But overall fuel 
economy isn't usually the main reason. Cost of the conversion to the 'much 
simpler, only 1 moving part' turbine vs. simply replacing the old recip 
engine with a new/rebuilt one isn't usually the reason, either.
--- FLAME v1.1
---------------