Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 21:42:06 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1852897@logan.com>
From: Lehanover@aol.com
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 12A vs. 13B
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/4/2002 7:17:45 PM US Eastern Standard Time, 
LSchurr@bellhelicopter.textron.com writes:

> I have this opportunity to obtain an RX-7 with a 12A aboard.
>  All the talk, research, and apparently flying aircraft seem to be centered
>  around the 13B and 20B.
>  
>  What difference is there in the 12A and is it suitable for aircraft use?
>  Too heavy?  Too wimpy?  Can I turbocharge it?  Or should I just junk it?
>  
>  Larry
>  
If it runs OK and the car looks good, you could buy it to drive. At 6,000 to 
6,500
RPM it will be down on power about 8 percent under a 13B. The cast iron is 
interchangeable and the aluminum front housing fits the 13B and is preferred 
for some installations because the housing has 4 studs for the front engine 
mount. The electronic distributor (if it has one) will work in the 13B if you 
have room for it. The rotors and rotor housings are longer by about 1/2 inch. 
2600 CCs VS 2292 CCs for a 12A. There is no substitute for cubic inches (or 
CCs). But if it is in great shape and has good compression and all of that it 
can be used. It would be good if you are building a larger or slower flying 
plane where a 2.85:1 reduction is used to turn a larger prop. Holding onto 
the nose of the push pull Reno racer (two 12As) with the power on, is a 
convincing argument for a 12A. You could buy the car and put in a Chevy V-6 
with automatic Trans, and still have a rotary engine to play with. 
Lynn E. Hanover